Who are the real polluters?
I wouldn’t normally use this blog as a forum to promote the views of other parties’ politicians but I enjoyed this speech yesterday from Hone Harawira on the ridiculous Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill.
…And that’s where this whole thing has gone haywire, because here we are, about to criminalise taggers for environmental pollution, while allowing the real polluters of society, to bypass paying the cost of their carbon emissions.
How come we let big industry, in the form of the agricultural and transport sectors get away with not paying for the costs of their pollution, but we’ll slap our kids down, without even blinking?
How come the kids have to pay, but big business doesn’t?
How come the Tagging Bill gets shunted up to Number 1 on the Order Paper, while the Bill to disestablish the Serious Fraud Office gets dropped down to Number 3, and the climate change carbon killers get another 5 years holiday?
Yes - tagging is ugly, it’s offensive, and it’s soul-destroying. But with a bit of paint and a bit of effort, you can clean it up.
But backsliding on our commitment to climate change like Labour is doing by giving the big polluters a longer holiday, or like National wants to do by getting Australia to take the lead, can’t be just brushed over.
If we get climate change wrong, there will be no tomorrow. We won’t get a chance to paint over the problem, because we’ll be toast…
It must be election year when we have politicians from every party but the Greens and the Maori Party rushing to show how tough they can be on youth crime.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Frog
So the Green party have a policy of being soft on crime do they?
I agree with the Judge, if anybody is a dick head (and a racist dick head at that) it is John Harawira, I find tagging to be culturally offensive, the only way to stamp it out is to adopt a zero tolerance policy.
It worked in New York and will work here if we are brave enough to give it a try.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I also find tagging culturally offensive. If John wants me to respect his culture, he can also make an effort to respect mine.
All praise to the judge. Finally, someone who will stand up for our cultural values….
May 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
big bro
The fact that the United States has the most people in prison in the world would have something to do with the lack of petty and juvinile crime in New York and other main centres. I wouldn’t like to be New Yorkers when those juviniles get out cos they won’t be petty criminals anymore. They’ll be hardened criminals and probably involved in gangs. Probably will be armed in short order as well.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
>>while allowing the real polluters of society, to bypass paying the cost of their carbon emissions.
That would be Maori, then. And Europeans. Consumers. Funny he glossed over that point, eh….
>>but we’ll slap our kids down, without even blinking
Because the community has said what they want, and it is your job to listen to them.
>>But with a bit of paint and a bit of effort, you can clean it up.
How about YOU clean it up.
>>If we get climate change wrong, there will be no tomorrow
New Zealand can do nothing about climate change. We can, however, do something about taggers.
>>because we’ll be toast
Rolls eyes….
May 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Not entirely true sleepy the reason why the US has so many people in jail is the stupid war on drugs. I mean everyone knows that prohibition works, it worked with alcohol didn’t it.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
turnip28
Drug taking could be construed as petty crime too. I expect a large proportion those that commit acts of vandalism, especially amongst the poor in the urban areas would be into drugs as well.
Oh thats right it did too lol.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
“If we get climate change wrong, there will be no tomorrow”
Oh how accurate a statement that is!
If we use a tax model that includes primary production pollution (e.g. agriculture) being taxed to the pointh where our base products (lamb, beef, etc.,) are totally uncompetitive in our key markets, then there will be no New Zealand tomorrow. We will have a trade deficit so high that the country will be abandoned by everyone who wants a standard of living that is higher than the working classes of the 1920s.
At some point, our politicians must put some aspects of belief up against the realities of our size and global influence, and make sure we don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. A simple slow-empty valve, that enables us to keep our nation’s head above water, will be ideal thanks.
As for the graffiti, this is just a single manifestation of a much bigger issue, taht of respect. The current generation of youths have had everything their way for their entire life. They have no respect for anyone else’s property or convenience, they do and take what they want. Instead of the yobbo being the exeception, as they were in the 50s and 60s, they are the rule today. Until a modicum of social responsibility is passed on to them, through there being consequences of anti-social behaviour, this society will continue to fail as politicians fiddle at the fringes while the coutry crumbles.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Prohibition = Nanny knows best (but remember to drink a lot as we can’t afford to lose the income).
Imposing the will of the few, in a manner that holds no salute to consistency of ethical position, is another illustration of fiddling while the country crumbles. The quality of Nero was always strained - but still we follow, forgetting the lessons of history.
May 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Its very difficult to pass on social responsibility in a socialist country like NZ. Why should kids be responsibile
How many NZ’rs are now wards of the state, I mean doesn’t labours working for families make nearly everyone in NZ a beneficiary.
Did the greens support the working for families legislation or did they oppose it on enviromental grounds since its a socialist policy and not a sustainable policy. Why should a family with 4 kids get more money from the government at the expense of the couple who have no kids.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
turnip28
It could be argued that New Zealand was more socialist in the 1950s and 1960s than it is today. Supposedly there was less social strife back then, so consequently its got little to do with “socialism” or the lack of “personal responsibility”.
Claiming it is so is just reductionist and simplistic thinking. I’m not a professional sociologist or psycologist, but I’ve been reading a few books that relate to and have a bearing on the topic at hand.
It must be recognised that the society in the Western World has undergone a massive transformation over the last 50 years and individuals in our society have to deal with a degree of complexity that our ancestors couldn’t have imagined and that perhaps humans haven’t yet adapted to.
We have the urbanisation (and reactive suburbinisation) and industrialisation in the 1950s and 60s, the Civil Rights and womens liberation of the same period, then the identity politics and de-industrialisation of the 1980s, all of which necissitated the severing of deep bonds of friendships and to communities, disruptions of societal norms and values etc all of which are part of what those in the social science field describe as “social capital”.
Its a process of transformation that Francis Fukuyama calls the Great Disruption and it can’t be expect that the disruptions coud have no adverse effects and for society not take time to adjust. Society is so atomised and fragmented these days so its going to take time and a massive amount of effort to rebuild the social capital that was lost due to the Great Disruption. Well thats my 0.2 cents.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well said, Hone! Kia ora koe!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Industrialization had been taking place along with urbanization since the 19th century. I don’t think you can pick a date in the 1950’s and 1960’s and call it a root cause. In fact you need to go back further than the 1950’s it all went wrong in the 1930’s with the reactionary policy created by men like Roosevelt and his unsustainbly new deal.
This set up a society that became dependent on the government and even thought it was entitled to be.
My girlfriends grandmother is 95 years old, she paid no tax during her life.
and her husband paid a very small amount of tax. She has been collecting social security for 30 years she has taken far far more money out of the system than was ever paid in on her behalf. As have all the other americans her age collecting social security.
Sleepy and Toad do you both beleive that you have the right at the age of 65 to stop working and receive money from the government. Your answer can confirm a lack of your own personal responsibility. If you want to retire and stop working then you need to find away to support yourself
The baby boomers grew up in this prosperous world and wanted for nothing and gained a sense of entitlement which they passed onto their children. Now we all live in a world where we all expect that each of us has rights to retire at 65, free health care, education etc. None of these policies were ever sustainable.
The break down of your “Social Capital” could be attributed to the break down of the family which began in the 50’s and the 60’s. Feminists beleive women wanted to enter the workforce this isn’t true they were forced into the workforce to maintain the families standard of living as the inflation policy which was being used to maintain the social policy was destroying the standard of living. With both parents working who was going to raise the children, well it wasn’t a person it was a machine thats right society gave up the raising of our children to the TV set.
Sleepy and Toad the world of the baby boomer is dying, the baby boomers don’t want to admit it they will drag this mindset kicking and screaming to their grave. This world of free health care, welfare and entitled retirement is coming to an end, this world is built on cheap oil its built by robbing energy from the past and leaving the consequences to the future generations of humans to deal with it. I would at least hope as green party members that you understand this. Free healthcare etc is paid for with oil, when the oil goes so does the free healthcare. Remember a system out of balance will always balance itself. This socialist world we tried to create is out of balance but don’t worry gia is correcting it.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I seem to remember my father making the same sort of diatribe as Turnip against youth when I was a kid. He tells me his father said the same sort of thing. Oh and by the way, Socrates made similar comments about 2500 years ago.
On the subject of changing our economy so we are no longer dependent on committing violence to sentient beings in order to make unhealthy products that wreck the environment, does it not occur to anyone that if something is so universally harmful, then our economy must change. Even if (shock horror) we have to do without a few gadgets and sacrifice a few overseas holidays. Those who use the economy as an excuse to do nothing seem to assume humans are so stupid or so evil that we cannot think of other ways of living except by exploiting others.
Nobody is saying grafitti spraying is okay. they are just putting it in context. I would much rather have to clean up every bit of graffiti in the country than have to clean up the mess that our dominant industry has made to the environment.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
You should re-read my remarks Kiore1 and then tell me where I attack the youth, I actually have great hope and repect for the youth I have no hope or respect for the baby boomers, or even my generation. You wont see me giving my seat to an elderly New Zealander in the future, they can stand and reflect on what they didn’t do. The only seat I’l be giving them is one that takes them to carrousel!!!
May 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hi turnip,
Your remarks are characteristic of a cynical Generation Xer am I right?
Although as a Gen Y I’m also highly critical about the wastefulness, profligacy, and unwillingness to change that is manifested by the majority of baby boomers.
You’re right that if the problems that appear to be over the horizon are as serious as are feared our current lifestyle is not sustainable.
What I don’t share though is your belief that providing a decent standard of living, and universal affordable education, and healthcare is impossible nor did it contribute towards the inflation of the ’60s and ’70s. Most of that is due to the U.S. government’s “defense” spending, corporate wealthfare, funding the “Space Race”, and due to the OPEC embargo on the West after the Iranian Revolution. Not to mention the attempts of Nixon to fund the massive current account deficit incurred due to the Vietnam War.
The reason the health system costs so much is the power of the pharmaceutical lobby in the United States who have been able to impose their agenda on all nations that signed the GATT and other multilateral trade agreements through the WTO in the form of the TRIPs agreements that protect them from competition from generic pharmaceutical companies in Third World who can substantially undercut them on price.
I’m personally tempted to ditch this country and move to Vanuatu where I have friends, especially if the sh*t hits the fan.
I think you’d like the place. In Vanuatu, there are no income tax, no withholding tax, no capital gains tax, no inheritance taxes, or exchange controls, although it faces the difficulties of most developing countries such as lack of access to capital markets (sic) and has difficulty funding social services that we take for granted such as education, so its rather poor save for Port Vila its capital, but land is at least cheap. Its looking better and better all the time.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 am
grafitti is an antisocial offence and a blight on the urban landscape, but so is the construction of great ugly boxes in front of or in place of lovely old buildings, developers who perpetrate these much more permanent & prominent monstrosities should be thrown in jail
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 am
kiore1 , If you knock the keystone out of an arch the whole ediface comes tumbling down. Kill animal husbandry and you kill New Zealand. It’s as simple as that.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 am
Sleepy, You overlook one of the biggest causes of inflation in the decades after WWII. During WWII we sold a Britian more farm products than it could pay for in cash. To cover the shortfall most of our debts to British banks was written off and we then gave Britain 20 years to pay off the outstanding amount. Even without the Korean war driving up wool prices we would still have had a fantastic amount of foreign currency coming in for 20 years. But that generation refused to acknowledge the source of their wealth and acted as though they could rely on high foreign exchange earnings forever more. To compound their error they also persisted with import tariffs to protect industries they couldn’t produce enough to satisfy demand. The result was incredible inflation and an obsession with home ownership. After all what else could individuals spend their money on. USA was smarter. It leant much of it’s profits from the war back to the Europeans and spent another big chunk of it’s profits giving it’s returned servicement tertiary educations. That led to much of their individual wealth being invested in college savings for their kids which helped hold demand for consumer goods within industry’s ability to ratchet up to full speed and that helped USA avoid serious inflation till the late ’60s when the repayments of those Euro loans put the USA into the same situation we had been in a decade and two earlier..
Which leads to the triple whammy that Muldoon refused to confront and gave the free-marketeers their window of opportunity.
1) Britain finished repaying it’s WWII loans from us
2) USA’s inflation hurt the global economy sending primary product prices tumbling
3) Europe made good use of the post-WWII loans from the US and became a force Britain couldn’t afford to not be part of which cost us our best market when we needed it most
The good times of the fifties and sixties weren’t the result of great domestic economic policy any more than the recent run of good fortune has been result of great domestic economic policy by any government of the last 20 or 30 years. Whatever happens in the next 20 or 30 years will also have very litte to do with current or future domestic economic policy.
You would have to do what kiore1 suggests, in a big hurry, to have a bigger effect than the global economy can produce. Almost any other approach to reducing carbon emissions no matter how drastic will hardly produce a noticable effect alongside the global economic effects peak oil and the possible collapse of the credit funded economic growth. If credit has really replaced productivity as the keystone of the global economy then you better check where the exit signs are before he lights go out
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
What interesting posts there have been on this topic. The (quite right) shift from Graffiti to world economics leaves no doubt in my mind that we’re starting to discuss the root cause of many existant problems in the ‘western’ world. (I use quotes because it’s very west of us, or east if you count the Americas - lol)
Let me just address one misconception, as a baby boomer; or at least give a different perspective on the opinions we are accused of holding (which we do, I admit).
AFter the Second World War, left of centre politicians, in some cases very left, came to power in many ‘western’ countries. The most extreme example is the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but Harold Wilson’s Laboiur party, as well as the three Labour governments before that in the UK, were equally as influential in their local domain.
A major policy platform of these left trending governments was the concept of the ‘welfare state’, which resulted in the passing into law of things like ‘free’ universal education, ‘free’ healthcare, ‘free’ pensions, etc.. Of copurse they weren’t “free”, and indeed, no politician suggested they were. When I started work, after a good, free, university undergraduate and post-graduate education, one of the first thingsI was given was my “stamp-book”, which I immediately passed onto my employer’s payroll department to fill up for me.
WHat was a “Stamp Book”? Well, it has no similarity to today’s book of stamps! Each week my “Social Insurance” contribution was calculated by the ladies in payroll, and stamps to that amount were purchased from the government and stuck into my book. When (if) I changed employer the book was given back to me, and I handed it in for further posting. The basic idea was that when I reached retirement age, I would be entiotled to a pension calculated on some algorithem based on the total value of the stamps I had accumulated. In other words, I ‘bought’ my pension as I went along, and could show that to anyone who asked. The book also proved to the ‘authorities’ that I was a wage-earner in the UK, and, as my wife and childrens’ names were added as they came along, it vouched for them too, showing they were entitled to the healthcare and education rights of a briton.
In the sixties, some idiot in parliament decided that there was more than enough money floating around in the ‘general fund’ of government, that it was no longer necessary to ‘prove’ you entitlement to ‘natural’ benefits of citizenship, the general fund would provide as needed. A little later, another idiot decided that backing the value of our currency, based on government’s holdings of tradable assets- such as gold - was quite difficult, and it would be better to let “the market” do it for them; the birth of an industry that has never created any value, but has caused much grief, sorrow and death.
I believe the New Zealand story is very similar, but have no personal experience of it to draw on.
So here I sit, in my sixties, having paid for the ‘natural benefits’ of people in England and New Zealand (a country I am now proud to be a citizen of,) hoping, against hope, that the current governments of those countries will live up to the promises of their predecessors and give me the income in my old age that I will need. My hopes are not high!
If I had taken the proportion of my lifelong income that was calculated in the 1940s as appropriate for my welfare needs, and put it into a private pension plan, education fund and health insurance, I would have fare as well, if not better, than I have over the years, and still have a large lump sum to fund my retirement. Instead, that money has been taken from me and used for the ‘common good’.
I have supplemented what I have contributed by purchasing private health insurance so that I can gain access to treatment if and when I and my family need it. I have paid fees to private schools to give my children an education that was based on achievement, not the the maintenance iof learning at the comprehensive average of the learning abilty of the children in a geographic area. I have paid fees to public universities to enable my children to attain the highest level of education they are capable of. In other words, I have subsidised the ‘natural benefits’ that I was told to expect because of falling standards. I don’t regret it or resent it, that’s been a fact of life since the vision of the socialists of the mid 20th century was lost to a higher level of intervention in personal choice.
So where am I now? Well, having contributed my share, and more, to the common good, I am (as I said above,) hoping that at least one portion of the promise will be kept, and I’ll be able to eat and keep warm in my old age. SOmehow though, the odds seem to be against me on that one. I meet people all the time who cannot afford to pay for the heating they need in the winter, or the food, and who have a reduced level of life expectation, both in duration and quality. If I really thought about the con job that I was subject to I’d probably become deeply clinically depressed and commit suicide! But hang on, maybe that’s what they’re hoping for - one less life to sustain through ‘natural benefits’.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 am
Strings and Kevyn,
Thanks for your exceedingly insightful and enlightening comments.
Its unfortunate that leaders of our country didn’t have the depth of knowledge and insight that you obviously have or else this country would be in a much better state and ready to face the potential trials ahead.
I just hope the futue doesn’t work out as bad as I fear it will for all our sakes.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
turnip28 asked: Sleepy and Toad do you both beleive that you have the right at the age of 65 to stop working and receive money from the government.
I presume you mean “moral right”, turnip28. I certainly have the legal right.
For the record, if I am well enough to continue working past 65 I think I have a moral responsibility to our society continue to do so. Besides, I think I would get bored in retirement, but I guess I’m lucky in that I’ve enjoyed most of the jobs I’ve had. I might have a different attitude if I’d soldered components into circuit boards all my life.
The sort of thing I’ve experienced in countries like Malaysia being served in restaurants by arthritic octogenarians who can hardly walk and earn a pittance but still can’t afford to give up work is a different matter. I don’t thing New Zealand should go down that path.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Kevyn
Your last posting contains the hidden premise that New Zealanders are too stupid or too evil to adapt to making a living in less unsustainable or cruel ways. The Southern US relied heavily on slavery for their economy, but when that was abolished in no way did it “Kill’ the former confederate states.
In fact all social changes require some economic upheaval. What about the poor inquisitors who were suddenly left without job when the Spanish Inquisition was abolished. Or imagine the disruption to the lock smiths guild when chastity belts became unfashionable. Nobody would have seriously used that as an argument for not making those necessary changes.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
kiore1, Sorry, my first response to you was a bit hasty. That’s why I added “in a hurry” when I mentioned your comment in my reply to sleepy. I’m not sure that slavery is the best example you could have picked considering what the freedom riders were subjected to a century after slavery was abolished. Or maybe it is a more apt comparison than either of us wants to contemplate.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Well yes as a Gen X’r I am a little cynical, Is Gen X not the most cynical generation.
I will just give the example of the US social security system which is a pay as you go system. There was never a surplus in the US social security system and the system was never designed to provide a surplus. Instead the system was designed so that each person over the age of 65 was receiving their payments from a pool of workers.
Lets give a real example each week 5 workers each pay 100 dollars into the system and each week a 65 year old women receives 500 dollars. Notice how there is no surplus. You the worker haven’t just put 100 dollars into a bank account you have given that 100 dollars to the 65 year old.
The five workers when they reach 65 will require a total of 25 workers to support them and when those 25 workers reach 25 they will require 125 workers. If it looks like a pyramid scheme and it smells like a pyramid scheme then it is. This means that a worker doesn’t have any moral right or legal right since I thought pyramid schemes were illegal?
Now the US did try and fix this by doing what, nope they didn’t get rid of the system oh no that would be political suicide. Instead what they did
was increased the amount the workers were paying by a lot in order to generate a surplus which they then spent. Don’t be fooled by the surplus it just extends the system but It does not change it from a being a pyramid scheme.
None of these systems can work as long as more than 1 worker is supporting 1 65+ year old. It doesn’t matter if 20 workers are supporting 1 65+ year old or 2 the system CAN NEVER be sustainable. Its just a pyramid scheme and nothing else please don’t be fooled as so many baby boomers were completly and utterly fooled by these schemes.
Now New Zealand is in a much better position since we are at least heading down the path of individual retirement accounts which is the personally responsible thing to do, If you want to retire some day then you need to fund your retirement not someone else.
Spare a thought for GEN’X in America and GEN’Y they have a freight train baring down on them with regard to the US Social Security system, Hey do we still have the Fair Go program on TV1 in NZ maybe they could come to the US and visit the US congress and do a show on the biggest pyramid scheme in the world on behalf of GEN’x and GEN’y americans.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Further to what I was saying I believe the NZ system was pay as you go as was the UK system. Remember pay as you go is just code speak for pyramid scheme. Try not to think about these systems as “The surplus was spent by stupid politician’s” But rather and i know this sounds bad
“Hey I got sucked into the biggest pyramid scheme ever.”
Hey Strings just like you had a little book I get a statement every year from the US social security admisinstration services telling me how much i have paid into this system, so lets say i receive a statement from them and it says you have paid $40,000 in total to social security. You must understand their is NO box in the social security administration building
that contains $40,000 dollars with my name on it (i’m a non-citizen anyway so I can’t receive the benefits anyway). These statements and books like what you had, created a false idea in the minds of the worker this helped pull the wool over people’s eyes so they didn’t see the truth which was that they were part of a great big Pyramid scheme.
The law has also been very weak on worker contributions to social security systems, I think German courts ruled that the workers contributions were not tax but were property which meant if the worker paid in money during their working life they were guaranteed to receive it and the government couldn’t change the rules since that would be a constitutional violation. That argument wont work in NZ or Britian since we don’t have constitutions.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Strings don’t even get me started on fiat money. Of course NZ MP’s love fiat money since they can print money to pay for things instead of raising taxes. The wonderful hidden tax called inflation.
This year in the US presidential race we had Ron Paul trying to explain the hidden inflation tax to people. If you understand that fiat money is bad then I take my hat off to you as you are a very intelligent human being.
Mind you I don’t think I have heard any of the green MP’s stand up in parliment and say that the NZ fiat currency is a very bad thing.
Hey how come the green party supports fiat money?
Where is green party policy seeking to take NZ to a commodity standard? Why do the greens not support the NZ backed by real value?
Maybe I should post something over on the private green member forums.
Oh yeah fiat money isn’t some new thing invented by 20th century economists the chinese tried it a very very long time ago and guess what it didn’t work. The fiat money rule is that eventually the value of fiat money = the cost of the paper its printed on.
NZ removed the 1 and 2 cents then the 5 will go and then the 20 and then the fifty and then the 1 dollar and so on.
In the US last year they made it illegal to melt down US coins. Why? well the US have destroyed their currency so much that the metal in the coins is worth more than the coin. Thats right if I exchange 1 dollar into 100 cents and then melt those cents down and sell the metal I will be left with more than 1 dollar.
How many people have read “The creature from Jekyll Island”
Isn’t John Key one of them didn’t he work at one of the reserve banks in the US, all I can say is watch him he is very very shifty.
See Strings you got me started on fiat money now I’m ranting and raving to my girlfriend about how bad fiat money is.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Turnip
Sorry I misread your posting on youth. And I broadly agree with you about baby boomers, though since I was born in 1963 I am still technically at the tail end of them.
Kevyn
I chose slavery as an example because I wanted to be honest, and I know that the transition to a slave free environment did take a while and was not problem free. Though it certainly did not “kill” the US sounth. Transitions are not easy, but they are possible and when we are dealing with a major evil like slavery or massive animal exploitation, then they are morally obligatory. In the end it is a moral question, which is more important, short term comfort of a few, or humans, animals and the environment being better off for the long term.
Abolition of slavery was also pretty much forced on the confederates after a war, but in the case of the UK, the transition was far less violent, and the effects far less traumatic. I am hoping that a similar non-violent transition could take place here.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
turnip28
The whole American social security and health systems are effectively bankrupt as succesive administrations have emptied the “lolly jar” as a means to cover their profligate spending.
http://tinyurl.com/2zfhkg
Although I’m opposed to som of Ron Paul’s more conservative views I considered him to have been the most credible candidate in the U.S. elections as all the others were as usual indoctrinated into the neoliberal and corporatist agenda. He definately knew how the whole fraudulent monetary system works and he even wanted to bring the troops home.
Its no wonder the MSM made a point to neglect covering his campaign attempt.
I don’t think that the problem is the fact that inflation is a natural part of fiat money its just that the wealthy people feel entitled to a monetary return merely for not spending money so they “invest” it in goods that are perceived to have more value than holding it in the bank. Inflation is merely an imbalance between consumption and production so it stands to reason that inflation occurs when people would rather invest in speculation rather than production or efficiency measures.
I’ve actually read alot about banking history, monetary systems designs and their alternatives.
I’m actually working at a Policy Institute in Christchurch and the director is a former banker in the City, but he was made aware of the fraudulent nature of the system when he attended several meetings with monetary reformers in the UK. Neither of us are particularly convinced re. the rationale of the Gold or Silver Standard nor the free banking that occured before the establishment of the Federal Reserve, because both were prone to frequent periods of crisis and extensive fraud and manipulation.
Heres his opinion on the matter and which I firmly agree with.
“Well yes that does seem to be a problem. I’ve touched on this before when looking at how the Bank of England experienced several runs just after it was formed. Why? Because they printed way more paper than they had in reserves of gold. So gold or no gold, there is nothing to stop authorities or private banks printing paper or more accurately filling up spreadsheets with lots of numbers.
I’m ambivalent on this gold business. Storage issues, never mind the horrendous process of digging the stuff out of the ground, present problems as do the ability to carry it safely but really its a confidence thing.”
http://sustento.org.nz/paper-or-solid-gold/
Where we differ is his belief in the Nation State whereas I’m believe in small decentralized government with more direct participation in governance by the people whose power is limited by a constitution of course and where every region has its own distinct currency. Why should Cantebury have a trade surplus yet suffer the same consequences as Wellington and Auckland who have massive deficits?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
ideally the whole country should be run without significant surplusses or deficits over the medium or longer term anyway. but the smaller & less diversified the economy is, the greater the chances are that there will be.
extensive trade between the various regions of nz might be a good idea, but separate currencies make that harder. i’d go in the opposite direction & say ultimately there should be a single global currency.
i’m afraid you might have mistaken nz for a country where monetary policy is set according to the whims of elected politicians. we have the reserve bank act, which binds the reserve bank to a low inflation target, which has only been raised by a nearly insignificant amount since it was first set.
since the years beween 65 and 75 are less than those between 25 & 65, and natural population attrition means there will be less people in that age bracket than in any earlier 10-year bracket, there will always be more workers than pensioners in a stable population. it isn’t a pyramid scheme. although an increasing population does make pensions a proportionately smaller drain on the government budget, it also makes education, family support etc more of a drain.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
andrew,
“…extensive trade between the various regions of nz might be a good idea, but separate currencies make that harder.”
Not if it were designed right. I’d take inspiration of John M Keynes proposal of the establishment an international clearing union and trade currency and adapt it for nation rather than international use.
His intention for the establishment of an international clearing union and trade currency was to ensure that international trade was balanced where noone was in surplus or in deficit through an ingenious mechanism that forced countries to revalue their currencies relative to the bancour by imposing penalties if they were in deficit or surplus. So if one region was in deficit (Auckland) it would be forced to devalue its currency to make its products cheaper and if another region were in surplus (Christchurch) it would be forced to revalue its own currency in order to make its products less attractive.
http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/03economy
“Under this system, exports earned bancors and imports spent them. The point was to keep the two in balance so that at the end of the year a country’s accounts with the ICU would be neither in surplus nor in deficit but “cleared” — close to zero. Every country’s currency would be assigned a fixed but adjustable exchange rate relative to the bancor. Keynes’s original thinking perceived that nations with too many bancors would disrupt the system just as much as those with too few— that creditors were just as dangerous to stability and prosperity as debtors.”
http://mondediplo.com/2007/01/03economy
May 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
andrew,
The problem with a world currency would be it would make the operations of a sector that has probably the most impact on the global economy even less accountable than it currently is, when even now it is far too unaccountable and opaque to most of us.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:13 am
the bancour idea is just a slightly more complex version of a national currency, or in its original conception, an international currency.
it requires a global central bank which in some way is accountable to the people (of the world) but that shouldn’t be a problem
May 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I would like Churton Park, a suburb of Wellington, to have its own currency, as we are high producers - far higher than the other suburbs.
But wait a minute, I KNOW I create more value than my neighbour, so maybe I should have my own currency, and (of course) my own bank to issue it!
Go to several countries, (for instance Scotland) and you will find their currency is issued by a local commercial bank (Bank of Scotland, Standard Chartered Bank are just two examples of banks that issue specie).
We have a global currency right now, it’s called crude oil, and the settlement is done in measures of US$ backed only by debt. Hence the high/low price depending on the traders’ (barrow boys) view of the relative value of your currency to the US$
Fiat money - Oh yes I remember Fiat money! I even remember the speech that announced its production, or at least one phrese from it . . . . . .
The pound in your pocket will not be worth less. (I looked at the prioned version later to make sure I’d got it right, as I though he’d said “worthless”. It wasn’t “worthless, but it sure was “worth less”.
I still believe in Mr. C Dickens’ definition of financial health ….
One pound income, nineteen shillings, eleven pence and three farthings expenditure - heaven is yours
On pound income, one pound and one farthing expenditure - hell is your home and the workhouse your accommodation.
I listened to Mr Cullen at a function last night, he sees that position exactly, which is why he has made sure, despite his personal beliefs to the contrary, that there is no money left to spend without putting the country into the workhouse.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
yeah a commodity such as oil can be used as a currency but isn’t very ideal, especially in the case of the highly consumable commodities like oil