by frog
Vernon Small, uses his column in the Dominion Post today to argue that the Greens have no where to go when they get down to negotiations after the election. He notes that the political climate while volatile, looks better for the Greens than last election.
So, on balance, the Greens can look forward to a stronger vote this time than in 2005 and the possibility of bringing in impressive new candidates on show at the conference such as West Coast DHB chief executive Kevin Hague, long-time activist Catherine Delahunty and suave internationalist Kennedy Graham.
But Small also suggests that the Greens have painted themselves into a corner that prevents them from working with National. He also however notes that any deal the Greens enter will need to be voted on democratically by party delegates and will need a 75% majority to pass. In other words there is not so much the problem that Small identifies of the Greens being taken for granted, but a problem for Labour and National knowing any deal they offer to the Greens needs to be good enough to convince a group of party activists who are, at this stage, highly critical of the stance both parties have taken on crucial issues like benefit levels, water quality and of course climate change. Small continues:
Ms Fitzsimons gave the conference a hint of how the party would pitch to expand its vote from the 5-7 per cent it has achieved at elections to its peak of 8-10 per cent in polls between votes.
Showing the party is prepared to adapt to a more hostile climate, she outlined a push for “affordable” food through a “food revolution” that included a call to Fonterra to trim its domestic margins on cheese, milk and butter and for the Commerce Commission to investigate the supermarket ownership duopoly.
Of course, food is not a new issue to the Greens. It has been a strand in the party’s policy basket for many years, represented by the so-called “Sue Kedgley mums” concerns over safe food, organics and food labelling.
This sentiment is similar to the grudging admiration that the Herald’s John Armstrong hints at towards the end of his column:
Fitzsimons, meanwhile, opened a fresh front on “food affordability” by calling for a Commerce Commission inquiry into the pricing behaviour of the country’s two dominant supermarket chains and challenging Fonterra to cut domestic milk prices.
It is clever politics, as it shows the Greens allying themselves with the consumer by advocating direct action to ease stretched household budgets.
Published in Campaign | Economy, Work, & Welfare | Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, June 2nd, 2008
Tags: Catherine Delahunty, commerce commission, dairy, duopoly, Fonterra, Food, food prices, Jeanette Fitzsimons, john armstrong, Kennedy Graham, Kevin Hague, milk, Sue Kedgley, supermarkets, Vernon Small
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
As conference media coverage shows, there are signs that there are good heads working on campaign messages palatable to a public prone to skepticism of the Greens.
But for proof of the tendency of Green Party campaigns to put off the very voters they must win over to rise above 4-5% of the count, you only need to see the ridiculous “Photoshopped” representations of the MPs in the Matariki calendar sent out to the faithful this conference weekend. I welcome the Matariki observance, but the ‘at one with nature’ caricatures of the MPs alongside the calendar are embarrassing and deserving of ridicule.
Yes there are educated voters disaffected with the main parties who might well turn to the Greens, but they won’t vote for a party which, while promoting eminently sensible policies, comes across as New Age and flakey.
Sadly, like the folk dancing and unreadable billboards of past campaigns, flyers like this reflect a loose approach to campaigning by the Greens when the messages and the way the MPs present themselves needs to be kept tight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i see jeanettes departure/succession is being discussed in the mainstream media..
here is my take on it..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/jeanette-fitzsimon-will-step-down-next-yearand-here-her-replacement-options-are-aired/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nice conspiracy theory, Phil. Pity it is almost all wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
not so much a ‘conspiracy theory’..toad..
more an anatomy of a deal/’fix’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a middle NZ voter, I listen to the platforms and make choices on what is there, tempered by the knowledge that much will go the way of file 13 if there are coalition negotiations.
However, I have a problem voting for hypocracy. A party that embraces policies that say don’t smoke, don’t smack children, we’ll get the money from raising taxes on alcohol and legalise SMOKING canabis gives me a major headache, as I can’t find a basis of consistency to identify with.
I think the MMP experiment may, this election, come acropper, with a party getting enough votes to govern without compromising its policy platform. THat may hereald a new beginning for our parliamentary process, and return us to a position where we actually get what we vote for, as opposed to Winstons’ or anyone else’s lies (I don’t covet the baubles of power). Last past the post is not my idea of an equitable form of democracy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
aww..!!..look..!..
stringy is a natty..having one-party-rule daydreams/delusions..
imagine how gutted he and his lot will be when lab/grns/mp form the next government..?
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings, Green policy acknowledges that all smoking is bad and should be minimised, but also that adults should have the choice, while children need protection (from advertising, the black market, etc). The idea that cigarettes and cannabis should be treated exactly the same could not be more consistent! If you want to treat them differently, then it is you who are being inconsistent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
White-anting is an Australian term for the process of internal erosion of a foundation. It is often used in reference to groups such as political parties or organisations where information from group insiders is ‘leaked’ or used to undermine the goals of the group. The Macquarie Dictionary says the verb “to white-ant” means “to subvert or undermine from within”.
The term is derived from the action of termites (white ants) eating the inside of wooden building foundations, often leaving no outward evidence, until the structure crumbles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The idea that cigarettes and cannabis should be treated exactly the same could not be more consistent! If you want to treat them differently, then it is you who are being inconsistent.”
OK, so as an adult I should have total choice of what I smoke. So P, acid (LSD), and all the other ‘smokable’ drugs shoudl be legalised.
Is that the position?
As for single party elections, they served mankind well through the centuries of greatest advance in science, understanding of nature, and many other aspects of progress. Howecer, they are not necessarily the most appropriate for today, as we have fragmented the traditional party structures (whigs and tories) and broken them into centrist parties with fringe parties at the extreme. What that should mean is that the potential coalitions agree a policy platform ahead of the election and offer themselves as a coalition (or two or three – I would not limit how many coalitions a party could be part of though others might wish to,) on the ballot paper, rather than the raw party list. THat way I could vote for something and expect to see it in action when the time comes for policy to be turned into bill and on to Act. In today’s world, I do not participate in a democracy, I particpate in an activity to nominate the negotiators of something I will have no influence over whatsoever.
DEMOCRACY means the ability to vote for what will happen. In New Zealand, at both the plebecite and general election, that DOES NOT HAPPEN, and so I no longer call this a democratic country, and describe our political system as ‘last past the post wins most’.
Comments, constructive and otherwise, always read!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Leagalising and regulating all drugs is not Green policy, though I personally support this as the only way to take the black market money out of it and begin to treat other drug abuse as a health issue like we sensibly do for alcohol and tobacco. I believe such consistency in approach would reduce abuse in adults and provide greater protection for children. I say this as a father of three young teens. Prohibition is a failed policy and we fail our children by not trying to do better.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Strings
… legalise SMOKING canabis [sic]
Where do the Greens say this ?
If you’re going to start an argument, then at least get your facts correct.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fastbike.
To quote from above . . . . . .
Strings, Green policy acknowledges that . . . . . . . the idea that cigarettes and cannabis should be treated exactly the same could not be more consistent!
Or did I read that word POLICY wrong ?
Valis
As the father of four between 27 & 49, none of whome has ever given me a moment’s concern regarding drugs, even though I looked and looked and looked (yes, I know how lucky I have been), I agree that . . . . .
“Leagalising and regulating all drugs is …..the only way to take the black market out of it ”
I don’t even mind if the excise tax on them is set as high as it is on cigarettes, to pay for the medical treatment of those who need health care because of that legalisation. At least it would be far less hypocritical than the current situation, where government says ‘use these drugs and pas taxes for the consequences, but don’t use those drugs they’re dangerous. In fact, I wonder if there is a study of the number of deaths caused by alcohol vs the number caused by “hard drugs”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is no doubt that alcohol and tobacco cause more deaths than probably all other drug abuse put together. That’s why it looks particularly silly to argue that cannabis use, which is not good for you, but has far less health impact, should be prohibited among adults, while the other two can be advertised for sale.
The GreensDrug Law Reform Policy Summary is at: http://greens.org.nz/searchdocs/policy4749.html. It does include making personal cannabis use legal for those over 18.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I found most interesting about the Green Party Conference was the speech made by Nandor Tanczos on Friday night when he said he would like to see The Greens working more closely with the Maori Party. Jeanette Fitzsimons echoed these comments in her speech on Saturday.
The interesting thing of course is that the Maori Party listened to and took heed of the Human Rights Commission in strongly opposing the Electoral Finance Act last year.
In his speech to Parliament on the third reading of the Bill Hone Harawira said:
‘Yes folks, money talks, but nothing talks quite like the truth and the truth about this bill is that it’s nothing but an arrogant dismissal by this Labour-led government to deny the citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand the right to participate in one of the fundamental rights of any so-called democratic society: How you elect your government….Money is not what drives people to vote. It is truth.’
I believe not only is the Electoral Finance Act anti democratic it is likely that the election later this year will descend into a farce.
We already have a situation where it is quite likely that the 50,000 member Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union will not be allowed to register as a third party and will be restricted to spending no more than $12,000 on election advertisements – that is less than 30 cents per member.
It is also clear that even the MPs did not understand the full ramifications of the law they passed last year. As a consequence it is very likely that MPs will have placed or made election advertisements without realising they have done so. The ramifications of this of course are that the cost of those election advertisements will need to be disclosed in their return of election expenses. It is quite possible some MPs will have already placed more than $20,000 of election advertisements and as a consequence ruled themselves out from seeking re election as electorate MPs. This will lead to a multitude of legal challenges.
It is not too late to end this farce. Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party could show some leadership and lead a move to repeal the Electoral Finance Act before it is too late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis: Strings probably doesn’t care what the truth is about Green policy or Strings would have sorted out his / her apparent confusion on the harm reduction ploicy relating to drugs a long time ago. It’s not as though it’s new.
In reading the blogs and comments over the past several weeks it becomes obvious that there are some conservative folk on the Net who have never actually read the Greens policies…..There is absolutely nothing wrong with being conservative. But at least try to get a grasp of the truth.
Looks like we are in for yet one more round of the media and others deliberately misrepersenting the policy that covers harm reduction in relation to drugs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hope the Green Party is going to take the PM to task on the support to children in beneficiary families.
It’s all very well having an In Work supplement to wages insufficient to support families, but this is no excuse not to have benefits at a rate sufficient to support families also.
Wages have been increasing faster than benefits (particularly at the minimum wage level) and it is clear that those on wages are struggling. This is because the costs they face have been inreasing faster than their wages. This is all the more true for those on fixed CPI related benefits as their real purchasing power has fallen further. I would go so far to say the purchasing power has fallen since 1999 by more than the benefit cuts of 1991.
The Greens should call for a new child supplement for those on benefits only (separate from the In Work payment) while there is a review of benefit levels and the way they are adjusted (moving to a necessities index to replace the current CPI, the CPI rate is artificially low because of the high dollar and global market competitiveness in areas of discretionary spending).
One point to note, there is age as well as employment status criteria in the HRA, so who is going to challenge the government over denying family support to parents with “children” over 18 “if” they are to deny those over 18 and under 24 the full rate adult dole (and equivalent student allowance). Particularly given the end of the youth rate wage etc. Greens should call for one adult rate of dole for those over 18 (and make this the payment or borrowing allocation to those on the student allowance).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings:
- This is New Zealand, not America. We hold referenda
- Referenda are great for showing public opinion, but keep in mind that not everyone is equally effected by an issue. Should men be able to overturn a law granting women full and equal rights? How about straight people denying gay people? Only some things deserve to be put to referendum- for example, broad options for constitutional change, like MMP vs FPP.
- As a citizen and an elector, it is partially your responsibility to make sure your representatives hear and fairly represent your opinion. If they are running away with your vote, I suggest you let them know why. The democratic principle is that the people grant power to the rulers. Threaten to take it away if things are so badly wrong.
- Broadly, if you have problems with MMP, I suggest you follow the proper procedure. Advocate constitutional change to something you feel is better. This is the area I actually think you may have hit on something good though- I’m of the opinion all constitutional change needs to be passed by referendum.
- While I agree that MMP raises many issues, I feel it’s a step in the right direction. The opinions of minority political groups, even ones like New Zealand First and United Future, deserve to be heard in Parliament. You don’t achieve democracy by running raw over whoever dissents- the idea is that you pick up objector’s concerns and run with those that most relate to the faction the people have empowered to govern.
- Requiring parties to run in blocks essentially reverts us to a two-party system, which centralises too much power in the leadership of large parties. It would be a step back and would essentially subvert the purpose of MMP, even if it would make negotiating less confusing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think the Greens have left it too late to make stronger overtures to the Maori Party. It should have done this way before the vote on the Electoral Finance Act. That was a big big mistake. I think the Maori Party is at least one step ahead of the Greens at the moment.
Unfortunately there is only two places for the Greens after the election: out of Government and in Parliament, or out of Parliament.
The Maori Party will snooker you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They will only snooker because they are a racist party contesting racist seats that ‘other’ New Zealanders can’t be a part of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari, my Oxford dictionary says:
referendum
• noun – a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision.
plebiscite
• noun – the direct vote on the opinion of all the members of an electorate on an important public question
As no referendum in New Zealand, in the last 20 years anyway, has been binding on the government, I would suggest that we have plebescites, even if we call them referenda.
But what the heck, it’s only words eh!
I appreciate your point on the more representative capabilities of MMP, and do know my responsibilities and options as a citizen Like most intelligent people, I am open to pusuasion regarding the merits or otherwise of a particular set of policies and beliefs (though old I have yet to catch oldfartitus). I am therefore open to your views and will consider them with the attention you have shown in putting them forward so elequently.
I do have one point yet unaddressed however, and that is the fact that as a citizen with franchise, I am not able to vote for a set of policies that will come to see the light of day as Acts of the New Zealand House of Representatives. I am not pursuaded that my desire for a clear set of cooalition policies will necessarily result in a ‘choice a or b’ situation, as I think there are many more permutations that might be capable of formation – I do not see that any party can only partake of one platform on the ballot paper, infact, I would expect that to be the exception not the rule.
One option might be a coalition of social equity, consisting of the Greens, the Maori, the United Future and the Families First parties. This combination, with an appropriate policy platform, might well shock the entrenched two and achieve government. How would that strike you?
OUTINFRONT
Seems there are people here who wish the blog to be visited only by people who share your views. As you accuse me, and others, of being conservative I wonder why you are not? You see the entire basis of the Green Movement, world wide is based on censervatism, as the dictionary proves . . . . . . .
conserve
• verb protect from harm, destruction, or wasteful overuse
Is this not what your ideology is based on? Or is your translation/version of The Green Movement rampant socialism, which was proven, in the 20th century, to be a failure as a societal concept (see 21st century history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the policies of the leadership of the China.
Perhaps the right way to look for vote transfer is through quiet discussion of the policies of the Green Movement in New Zealand, rather than damnation of people who hold an open mind and a willingness to listen, but then socialism was always about regimentation of the plebes by the select few wasn’t it – and perhaps you aspire to selection!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@strings
To quote from above . .
Or did I read that word POLICY wrong
Actually – you did read it incorrectly. And you pasted together 2 sentences to arrive at one wrong idea.
More to the point, the words quoted were NOT from GP policy. The link to the policy has been provided above – I suggest you read it so you won’t have to argue with yourself again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why is there not a post about Russel Norman’s elevation to the house?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s only a matter of time ’till the media put the Greens under the spotlight, after all you can only dangle environment in front of the public psyche and the you have to face the hard issues and that’s where the embarrassing policies, statements, inconsistencies* etc will be shown up.
For example 1) why do the Greens protest spy bases at Waihopai due to a loose connection with the war in Iraq while at a different place and time Sue Bradford holds a banner (John Minto on the megaphone) protesting police action against alleged terrorists (weapons charges pending) in the U re we ras.
2) Championing indigenous rights where those rights potentially cover the whole country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is clever politics, as it shows the Greens allying themselves with the consumer by advocating direct action to ease stretched household budgets.
Us Western consumers are the cause of global warming and have the largest carbon footprints of any group. The Greens want “direct action” to ensure we can consume as much as we want.
Next Greens will be saying that subsidies similar to French farmers and American agri-business are brilliant.
Sure the polar bears will die out and Bangladesh will vanish under the waves, but the Greens will make sure Brie is affordable for every Ponsonby wine tasting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wow..!..unaha-clasp..
which planet are you from..?
(obviously not the planet of linear thought’..
eh..?..)
(i must confess to having a ‘moment’ when i saw norman on the news..presenting one of the the strongest arguments why the co-leadership should have gone to nandor..
..as the reason he should get into parliament..(!)..
(ie..the co-leader should be in parliament..)
..and normans’ pretend angst over ward..over the weekend..
..when he knew he was ‘in’..(the pressure on ward wouldn’t have been ‘light’..eh..?)
..was..in hindsight’..not a good look..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari you really show your lack of understanding about US Politics with the quote “This is New Zealand, not America. We hold referenda”.
Since a New Zealand referenda is a joke and a waste of taxpayer money.
Where as in the US, states can have all sorts of legislation on the ballot at election time which the citizens can directly vote for. For instance I believe they are trying to get a ban on gay marriage onto the ballot in California for the upcoming election. I Know Kentucky and Georgia have already banned gay marriage using this approach. I think they passed with 75% in favour of banning gay marriage in Kentucky and Georgia.
Next time when you try to make a reference that bashes the US and makes NZ look like the perfect country which it isn’t at least understand what you are talking about.
I wonder if the green watermellons keep a score card which tracks the number of posts with an american bash in them. Do Russel and Sue hand out prizes each month to who ever has the highest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Green Movement rampant socialism, which was proven, in the 20th century, to be a failure as a societal concept (see 21st century history of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the policies of the leadership of the China.”
The claim of conservatives that Soviet totalarianism is a form of socialism is as rediculous as that of the Troskyites that it was a form of a workers state.
Stalin’s Soviet Communism wasn’t the “dictatorship of the proliteriat” that Marx envisioned, it was merely corporatist capitalism without the constraints of liberal democracy. After all both Lenin and Stalin greatly admired and praised the Corporate dominated and Taylorist “scientifically managed” economy of 1930s United States.
“…we must raise the question of applying much of what is scientific and progressive in the Taylor system . . . the Soviet Republic must at all costs adopt all that is valuable in the achievements of science and technology in this field . . . we must organise in Russia the study and teaching of the Taylor system”
April 28, 1918 in The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government published in Isvestiya of the All – Russian Central Executive Committe
“American efficiency is that indomitable force which neither knows nor recognises obstacles; which continues on a task once started until it is finished, even if it is a minor task; and without which serious constructive work is impossible . . . The combination of the Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency is the essence of Leninism. (Hughes 2004, 251)”
Neither Soviet apologists nor capitalists are willing to admit the influence that Taylorism and Fordist capitalism had on the United States, but its rather obvious if you care to look. Its actually ironic that “Leftists” worldwide look back at the era of Fordism with such nostalgia and fondness, when its very basis was control and coersion of the workers.
In 1921, a Marxist novelist, wrote a dystopian novel that was both an indictment and satirsation of Taylorism and a vision of a society where it was carried to its furthest conclusion and unfortunately less than ten years later, it transpired that dystopian vision happed in Stalinist Russia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I remember it, liberals in the west realised (ultimately) that socialism didn’t work without force?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh,
Do you honestly think that capitalism was imposed without force during the 19th Century?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil,
(obviously not the planet of linear thought’..eh..?..)
Scuse me phil, just pointing out that making dairy produce more affordable is the same as making sure more people can afford dairy produce. More dairy is consumed – more cows required to produce it – more methane – more AGW – less polar bears.
Linear as it comes. Green initiative = less polar bears.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i retract my criticism of your point..
yes..it is populist/shortsighted/environmentally ‘unsound’ for fitzsimon to call for dairy subsidies..
the foul/unhealthy muck should have a sin tax on it..
(in my comprehension-defence..you dazzled me with your agri-biz/polar bears/ponsonby brie..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah my sleepy one
take a rest from your exertions
Now we know that you are a ‘true communist’, a Marxists, we can now see your postings in context. I apologise for mixing you up with Socialists.
Perhaps you would like to put New Zealand into real communism (from comune) and form us into kibutzes, the only real experiment in communism thatt actually delivered something and proved the point. Though somehow I doubt that, as it would mean everyone being equal, and I sende that you want a position of leadership.
Goodnight sleepy one. Perhaps we’ll meet again on another place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the foul/unhealthy muck should have a sin tax on it..
Too blimmin right
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings: As I said n my post, I have no issues with people being conservative. I do have issues with people who ignore the facts…..as you apparently did in failing to understand this point. It really was the ONLY point I was making in my post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
to sleepy tree hugger – Do you honestly think that capitalism was imposed without force during the 19th Century?
I would say the wave of Eastern Germans flooding into West Germany in 1989 says that capitalism has not been forced on anyone. The remainder of eastern european countries doing the same further reinforces this.
You sit writing on a computer advocating communism/socialism never understanding that the technology, food and clothing you use every day is due to capitalism. We could adopt socialism but that is advocating for a short nasty brutish life. I’d rather life in the current world whcih for all its faults provide me the opportunity to learn, seek employment that I enjoy, a reasonable level of healthcare and the potential that tommorrow will be better than today. You cannot offer any of that. Capitalism allows people to make their own decisions/choices everyday on lots of little things. Those decisions which socialism/communism curtails are what makes today better than yesterday.
Capitalism also provides the mechanisms (via economics) to address environmental problems – give it a try, you might be surprised at how effective it is and how much the wider population would support this.
Can you tell me who makes a pencil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings,
No I’m not a Marxist, although I do recognise that Karl Marx’s analysis of the capitalist system of his day was a rather accurate one.
Rather I’m a Geo-libertarian, which is a subgroup of the left-libertarian. In contrast to the “Royal” Libertarians, I don’t consider absolute property rights to be legitamate nor do I believe that the mythical neoliberal “Small Government” is in any way better than the old centrally planned regime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
Nope I’d actually prefer the political and economic model that dominated the New Zealand’s early settlement history.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings my girlfriend spent a year on a Kibutz in Israel everyone was always depressed she said and if you wanted anything you had to get approval from the council, the only money anyone had was sent to them from their friends and families in the outside ‘normal’. I think i’ll pass up the offer to live on one of Sleepy’s planned NZ commune’s
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A kibbutz is hardly the only alternative outside capitalist economic relations.
I’d actually rather live on a Moshav than a Kibbutz, because of the issues that turnip28 speaks of. I was planning on staying at a eco-friendly Kibbutz next year when I visit Israel, but I changed my mind, because of those reasons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepy
How nice for you
All land is common property, (with a rental to the common purse,) but all produce of a man’s labours are his exclusive property.
So tell us. Do you rent your home? do you own anything that you have not produced yourself, and do you think this philosophy has anything to do with the Green Movement?
And wasn’t the economic model that dominated the New Zealand’s early settlement history ‘might is right’, given that the “govenor” was so far away that what you did was what you could get away with?
Turnip – me too!
What would Hayek say – Agreed. I am shocked that STH is planning a trip to Israel on a vehicle of some kind, which I can only assume he has not created with his own labour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
strings,
Yes thats what all early classical economists believed, from the French physiocrats to Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
Your failing to distinguish ownership of possessions and private property “rights” which derive from government fiat and are only able to be enforced by it in contrast to your own body and possession, which your far less dependant on the State to enforce, not to mention no little land is created by people so why should it be legitamately owned?
When you buy land in New Zealand you’re recognising that you don’t have absolute property rights under common law. You’re not paying for full ownership, but merely tenure or title under the British fee simple property regime.
The Crown or “our” sovereign the Queen actually owns all lands in New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and Papua New Guinea. Individuals as her subjects merely hold tenure rights. Thats why such statutary powers of the State such as taxation (rates) eminent domain, Bona Vacantia, and Echeat are possible. Its the same in the United States, where only a few States recognise full or allodial property rights. Complete propert rights are held by either State or Federal governments.
“In New Zealand, which adopted English land law and the doctrine of tenure, the underlying principle is that the Crown holds the allodial (underlying) title to all land in New Zealand and grants title to land.”
http://tinyurl.com/3rm7nz
“And wasn’t the economic model that dominated the New Zealand’s early settlement history ‘might is right’, given that the “govenor? was so far away that what you did was what you could get away with?”
Hmm. Upon reading further it appears the original text I was referring to like most libertarians had a rather distorted view of history.
http://tinyurl.com/6qxb7z
“Wakefield’s idea involved rejecting the practise of granting land to settlers for no cost. If the land had to be purchased labourers could not afford to buy land immediately and would have to work for those who could purchase land.
He wanted the complete cross-section of English rural society to be transplanted to the new colony.”
http://tinyurl.com/6j4osj
“Where land is cheap and all men are free, where every one who so pleases can obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour very dear, as respects the labourers’ share of the product, but the diffi- culty is to obtain combined labour at any price.”
E.G. Wakefield, “View of the Art of Colonization”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I must say I like Henry Georges Single(?) land tax as it would cut out speculators who descend like blowflies on our scenic towns etc. I’m not sure whether it would work in practice however.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I would say the wave of Eastern Germans flooding into West Germany in 1989 says that capitalism has not been forced on anyone. ”
Capitalism has been forced on me – what have the Germans got to do with it?
“You sit writing on a computer advocating communism/socialism never understanding that the technology, food and clothing you use every day is due to capitalism. ”
So? Does that mean everybody who drives on a state-owned road has to profess socialism? Anybody who shares property with friends or family has to profess anarchism? Everybody who works for, or uses services provided by, a state-owned enterprise is a fascist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good luck arguing with a Hayekian who probably hasn’t even read Road to Serfdom.
Well at least hes not a Objectivist who doesn’t realise that Ayn Rand didn’t believe in absolute property rights as she advocated for a land tax very similar to what classic liberals and Henry George came up with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi STH, I try to maintain a wide collection of reading which includes such fun authors as Naomi Klein (you have to admire her passion), Das Capital (Marx/Engels) and scarily enough a book called Road to Serfdom. Theres also other authors on my book shelf such as J S Mill, Adam Smith (philosphies as well as wealth of nations), Bhagwati, Stiglitz and others… I find it wonderful the different perspective of people and how we are striving to improve our knowledge and well being. No one seems to have to perfect answer (not even Hayek), but I like that we keep adding to our knowledge and seek to make tomorrow a better day never knowing what exciting new thing someone may come up with that I might want to buy because it saves me time and money and adds to my personal enjoyment.
What I am passionate about is the poor – being poor sucks, and what we can best provide is the opportunity to rise above poverty. Yet to see or even be provided with any empirical evidence of a way to improve the lives of people without markets. It is always important to remember money is only amoral and the means for exchange, it is people who are moral or immoral and it is how we choose to life our lifes as individuals within a society that we advance as a society.
Life is beautiful, enjoy it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sure Selma would agree
But hey mate, have you spent any time with the poor?
I go to Sri Lanka every year, and always spend some time with the folks who pluck leaves from tea plants for 16 hours a day six days a week and get paid $2 for it. The most amazing thing is their smiles, nothing gets them down and they’re always happy.
My wife and I have ‘adopted’ the school children in one of the pluckers’ villages, and every year buy them each all the books, pens, pencils, inks, paper, etc., that they need for their ‘new school year’. It’s quite amazing what a trivial amount (last January $120 provided everything for all 73 of them,) does to their families’ wellbeing and our sense of humility.
In this country we don’t have and truly ‘poor’ people. We have a welfare system that entitles everyone to sufficient necessities of life to be able to gain weight and be treated for illness and disease. In Sri Lanka, there is no welfare system. If you don’t work you have no money and there is no government agency to get some from. If you’re sick, you have to be able to pay the doctor or nurse (as well as get to one if you’re out in the wilds) and there are no subsidies for medicines, you pay the full retail price (which is based on an international wholesale price for proprietary drugs from the major drug companies, so ‘generics’ from India are the norm, despite them being, usually, reverse engineered,)
I’m no saint though, my wife is Sri Lankan, and has been raised by her parents to give practical help to those in need before having luxuries for herself. I accept that she has that responsibility and an happy to work with her to live as she was taught.
What are your experiences of helping the poor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“it is people who are moral or immoral and it is how we choose to life our lifes as individuals within a society that we advance as a society.”
Nonsense – we are not a bunch of isolated individuals – what I do impacts on people around me. What politicians do impacts on me. What society decides is unacceptable behaviour and criminalises impacts on me. If the land opposite me is sold to somebody who opens up a McDonald’s franchise it impacts on me. If the owner of the railways decides to asset strip them and take the profits overseas it impacts on me.
We are all part of collectives, like it or not, the only real argument is how power is distributed in these collectives. Individualism is denying basic realities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Sam, good to see the passion and pursuit headlong into the great physics debates of our time (meta, chaos etc).
You seem to have missed the point that it is people’s individual choices, choices which impact on their own lives and on others that are either moral or immoral. You can choose to live a moral or immoral life.
I don’t deny we life in a society, but the ability to express choice within that society is the difference. Be careful of what you are asking for with collectives, in its absurdo ad reductum this can easily lead to tyranny of the majority where a 51% choosing to enslave the non majority 49%.
Of course you can also make absurdo ad reductum arguments for individualism as well. I didn’t say it was perfect, just doing better than all the other systems at reducing poverty and improving the world at the same time.
I worry for the green movement, you probably have 6 months to decide if you about about the environment or whether you are socialists, there are many people who care about the environment but who know that socialism is not they way to improve the world. Big risk these people are going (if not have already) find other parties to advance there concerns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I didn’t say it was perfect, just doing better than all the other systems at reducing poverty and improving the world at the same time.”
Don’t think individualism has ever been tried, has it?
“You seem to have missed the point that it is people’s individual choices, choices which impact on their own lives and on others that are either moral or immoral. ”
Eh? Who decides what is moral or immoral? If my choice impacts on others, whose moral principles are taken into account? Power is the issue, not morality.
And why should collectives work by a 51% majority?
I’m a socialist, thougth not a Green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So tell us. Do you rent your home? do you own anything that you have not produced yourself, and do you think this philosophy has anything to do with the Green Movement?
No I board with someone. Nope I volutarily gave up a portion of the fruits of my labour (wages) in exchange for what I now possess. See I don’t oppose a market economy, but what I do oppose are its flaws.
Land, power (authority), and money monopolies, artificial propert rights (patents, copyrights, restrictive laws ), special privileges granted to favored clients of the State (subsidies, tax breaks, tariffs), which distort interactions of indivduals within the market system in order to favor select participants.
Because the privileges that the State has granted Corporations allow them to amass massive amounts of capital that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to and furthermore they have the fiduciary (legal/contractual) responsibility to maximise returns to its shareholders regardless of the detrimental consequences that their actions have on stakeholders in wider society or their environment. I wish to strip for those privilidges to be either stripped from them or severely limited.
WWHS,
Apologies for my outburst, but I especially hate my views to be misrepresented as those held by individuals and institutions I despise and abhour. Why is it that people fail to realise that there are economic alternatives apart from capitalism and communism? Socialism is an incredibly diverse collection of beliefs with many and varied threads, often conflicting.
So you don’t consider publicly traded limited liability corporations to be collectives?
Thats the problem no one else will advance the Greens concerns, but at the end of the day what we do here in New Zealand will have little effect on the rest of the world.
“Yet to see or even be provided with any empirical evidence of a way to improve the lives of people without markets.”
Well I can’t, because even the Soviet Union and China improved the lives of millions of their citizens using an economic model that was only superficially different from that of th Fordist/Taylorist economy of the post-World War II United States.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What would Hayek say Says:
June 4th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
> Capitalism also provides the mechanisms (via economics) to address environmental problems – give it a try, you might be surprised at how effective it is and how much the wider population would support this.
Actually, the Green Party does advocate market-based solutions to a number of problems. Our desire to see all the polluting sectors included in the emissions trading scheme as soon as possible is based on a belief that price signals that reflect real costs will lead to a more efficient use of resources. The enquiry into anti-competitive practices by supermarkets that Jeanette announced on saturday was based on the idea that a freer working of market mechanisms in the food retail sector would lead to better results for customers and small businesses.
Some Green Party policy is based on more use of market forces, some is based on less. We’ve never been dogmatic about it in either direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and I should add that our support for capital gains taxes is based on a desire to correct a distortion in the tax system. Currently money earned through capital gain is not taxed, but earnings from other sources are, which means the market is skewed in favour of investing to produce capital gain, as opposed to investing in an activity that produces a steady supply of goods or services. We believe the market should be neutral with regard to these two types of endeavour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SleepyTreehugger
>
>> artificial propert rights (patents, copyrights, restrictive laws ),
>
I have a problem with the concept of patents and copyrights being artificial property rights mate. (As you were unspecific regarding restrictive laws – and most laws restrict what you can do in one way or another, I’ve yet to see a law that says it’s OK to breathe – I won’t go there.)
If the fruit of YOUR labour is wages, why can’t thr fruit of MY labour be material which others want to use and I charge a fee (royalty, licence, et.,) for? I put in the hard years with an intellectual rather than physical effort, and produce something (say a book that many others want to read, like a Harry Potter tome,) and then expect an income from that effort, in another word WAGES. How can you consider this to be wrong? What makes you work (what ever it may be,) more worthy of reward than mine?
I’m really having a problem understanding you here, so please help me.
>
>> money monopolies
>
This is another area where I’m having a problem understanding your point. Are you saying that people with money shouldn’t monopolise it and determine how it should be used? This is a bit of a twister for my mind to get round. You see, if I give $20 to a homeless person, should they decide what to do with it or should I, or for that matter you? When you have ‘created’ your money, through wages or any other approach, shouldn’t you have the right to dispose of it as you think best – for instance, is it right or wrong of Bill Gates and his wife to use the money they have earned, from the fruit of his intellectual effort, to help alleviate the suffering of children in less than ideal circumstances?
>
>> Finaly
>
Going back to land ownership, I would have thought the concept of ‘fee simple’ would have appealed to you, in the sense that it maintains ‘common’ ownership (all citizens through the vehicle of The State) enables ‘rent’ (taxes) to be paid to the common purse (again the state) and provides for a ‘renter’ to prove their right to possession of the land and ownership of the property on that land (garnered through the fruit of the owners labour). Please help me understand how this is not in accord with your core beliefs, I am not being trite, I really do want to understand.
You should know that I am a Gaianist, and therefor have concepts relating to land and things that are nowhere near societal norm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
I think you may be on a really sticky wicket with capital gains, for a simple reason.
My home, which I own, has experienced a ‘capital gain’ of about 200% since I originally purchased it, none of which has been ‘realised’ as I live in it. IF I were to sell it tomorrow (under your system) I would not be able to replace it with a home of the ‘same’ relative quality (which ‘should’ cost the same as I sell for) as I will pay, at today’s marginal rates 39% of the procedes of my sale in tax. How does this amount to any form of equity, and how does it enable/encourage ordinary people who don’t want to pay rent to invest in their own property?
The lack of both capital gains taxes is one of the best reasons for bringing to, and keeping. wealth in this country. I seriously believe that if the taxc was imposed, the flight of capital, intellect and brawn to Australia and other countries where wealth is more readily built, would make the annual migration of birds from New Zealand to the Northern Hemisphere seem trivial.
One thing Socialism MUST significantly examine, in this era, is the ease with which people can relocate between countries. To paraphrase a 20th century NZ Prime Minister, beware that your policies do not cause a flight to AUstralia, as every time someone takes that path as a migrant, the average net worth of Australians will go up, and that of New Zealanders will go down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not sure I agree, Strings. Australia has a capital gains tax, but it hasn’t caused a flight of capital, intellect and brawn to New Zealand which does not – not that I’ve noticed, anyway.
But what the lack of a capital gains tax has done in New Zealand is tilted the playing field so people are much more likely to invest in property rather than productive enterprise. So I’m an advocate for a capital gains tax, but I do think the family home should be exempt, for the reasons you allude to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It will force up rents, as it does it Europe.
The UK has a capital gains tax, but offers tax shelters by way of ISAs.
Toad – as Strings points out, they’ll move to “where wealth is more readily built”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
One of the reasons I see for the lack of flight from Australia is the low overall tax rates paid, and the exclusion of personal property from the capital gains tax.
One of the big issues with moving people from investing in property to investing in listed stocks and shares, is the question of who will provide housing for renters?
In my circle of friends there are probably about 70 investment properties, all of which are occupied by renters. If a Capital Gains tax was to be imposed, and they believed, as you aparently do, that the total after taxincome over x years from both capital gains and profits, from investment in productive enterprise (through I ass/u/me the NZX,) would be greater than the return on their investment in property, who will buy the property from them to release the capital for reinvestment? Something tells me that your answer to that question is going to be “the state”; which means more borrowing of capital, and more taxes to cover the cash-flow losses that most rental properties incur.
I await your insights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Sorry, I missed a point!
There has been a SIGNIFICANT flight of capital from Australia to New Zealand, just look at who owns which of our major businesses (banks, smelters, etc., etc..)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not really following this capital gains is too hard thread but why is it that Sell-Off-NZ-R-Us property gurus rave about NZ’s “no capital gains tax” to their US audiences…………??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Exactly, a flight of capital into the country from places with Capital Gains Tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I have a problem with the concept of patents and copyrights being artificial property rights mate.”
“…why can’t thr fruit of MY labour be material which others want to use and I charge a fee (royalty, licence, et.,) for?”
The problem is its not only rare for the actual inventors of products to directly profit from the royalty’s as the corporations that commersialise it force them to sign them over as a condition of employment, but those corporations abuse the intellectual property regime, which provides them with a de jure monopoly, to charge extortionate rents from their customers (cos of lack of competition) or their competitors (who want to compete, but have to pay royalties) and they use their wealth and influence to extend the lifetime of their patents as they’re due to expire, which has happened to Disney in the late 90s.
This distorts the market and in the long run inhibits innovation.
In the late 19th Century a patent lawyer named George Baldwin Selden filed a patent for a four wheeled self propelled vehicle without actually building one and delayed its issue for 15 years. He then set up a car manufacturers cartel, which extorted royalties from all other car manufacturers and even tried to dictate who was allowed to manufacture them. In the end it took a legal battle from an opposing cartel lead by Henry Ford to overturn the patent.
“This is another area where I’m having a problem understanding your point. Are you saying that people with money shouldn’t monopolise it and determine how it should be used?”
No I’m saying that the State has given private banking institutions a de jure monopoly to issue money, they determine its value, who gets it, and how its transmitted. They keep out competition by putting up high barriers of entry such as minimum capital requirements and deposits.
“Please help me understand how this is not in accord with your core beliefs, I am not being trite, I really do want to understand.”
I don’t have a problem with it at all. I was just pointing out that you can’t buy land here and still recognise that absolute property rights exist. I don’t object to individual property rights at all. I see the value you in it, but others must recognise that they should not be absolute. Even public goods in Ayn Rand’s utopia from Atlas Shrugged was funded by land rents.
New Zealand actually had a land tax on the value of unimproved land until the early 80s when Roger Douglas abolished it as he associated it with socialism which he believes had been descredited by the economic crisis of the 1980s. A land tax recognises that a lot of the value of capital gains is merely an appropriation of socially created value.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>The problem is its not only rare for the actual inventors of products to >directly profit from the royalty’s as the corporations that commersialise >it force them to sign them over as a condition of employment, but those >corporations abuse the intellectual property regime, which provides >them with a de jure monopoly, to charge extortionate rents from their >customers (cos of lack of competition) or their competitors (who want to >compete, but have to pay royalties)
Sorry, but that ISN’T Correct. The companies who employ the researchers who may or may not develop something patentable, do so on a salary basis, which is negotiated in advance and maintained in line with general salary trends for the skills and gifts of the particular researcher.
If getting the product to market involves significant further investment, such as in a case where a drug is involved, the researcher is not asked to contribute to that investment (which today is about $1 billion for global release of a drug). This is so expensive because each country or authority insists that is set its own standards of investigation of any proposed drug for human consumption, and so a drug must pass through something in the region of 150 different ‘proofs’ to be globally available. The cost of which is loaded onto the cost of the anticipated volume of sales over the patentable life of the drug.
In addition to these costs, there are the costs of research that does not produce a result that has commercial potential. Last time I was involved in the pharmaceutical industry the ratio of ‘hits’ to ‘misses’ was about 6:1. Thus, for every million spent on getting a research project top the point of having approved drug registration another six million had been poured down the sink as waste. Again, this has to be added to the cost of the items sold, otherwise no research would be done. So, before a drug is manufactured, packaged, shipped, promoted, doctors educated as to its efficacy, chemists take stock and patient gets dosage, US$1.7 billion has been spent. Given a reasonable production and value chain cost of $3 per dose and patent life expectancy of 1 billion doses sold, that means each dose has a COST of $20. Add 50% for all overheads, and you’ve got a $30 pill that many people (yourself included) think is exhorbitant.
Oh, and by the way, I have yet to come accross a situation where the researcher who actually made a breakthrough that resulted in a patent was not recognised, and appropriately rewarded, by their employer. In the world of pharmaceuticals, a million dollar bonus is not seen as unreasonable, and there are many examples. (Read Breakthroughs, a book published by Arthur D Little, they document many patent stories, including the one of PostIts, a very interesting story!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings and Toad you have to support a capital gains tax on the family home we need to stop people from realizing the gain on the appreciation of an asset which SHOULD not appreciate in value.
Most NZ’rs live in this reality that home prices must go up, but the only reason an asset price should increase is because that asset is now providing more value.
The only way your house can therefore gain value is if you do something like add a second story etc.
If you only provide repairs to your house to maintain its level the price of the house should appreciate at the rate of inflation. Note a house increasing at the inflation rate isn’t gaining value its real value doesn’t change it is the same as it was 10, 20 years ago. Since most people don’t understand inflation they believe the house has increased in value when what has actually happened is the unit(NZ dollars) being used to value the asset has declined in value.
So a good calculation for captial gains on a house should take the purchase price adjusted for inflation + expenses for any additions made to the house. The difference between this number and the price you sell your home for is a very clear capital gain that you have received and you should most definately pay tax on this, you have received money for doing nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
> Strings and Toad you have to support a capital gains tax on the family home we need to stop people from realizing the gain on the appreciation of an asset which SHOULD not appreciate in value.
On the other hand, houses and the land they’re on often do increase in value. And if you tax that increase like any other, it stops people shifting to a house that better suits their needs, in that you can’t afford to buy a house as valuable as the one you sold.
I think there should be a capital gains tax on the family home, but that you should get a full tax rebate when you reinvest the money in a replacement family home (or a partial rebate if you only spend some of it on the new home). This way, you’re only taxed when you take the money out of housing to spend on something else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
Houses don’t often increase in value, they slowly depreciate just like any other manufactured object, it is only the land under them that increases in value (or, as at present, depreciates rapidly). So, if you want to keep home (ie: house+land) values stable then bringing back the land tax (as SleepyTreehugger is advocating) is your answer. It is much simpler than a capital gains tax (c.f. the kind of exemptions a CGT forces you to invent) and much more beneficial for the economy as a whole.
SleepyTreehugger,
Nice to know I’m not the only geolibertarian/georgist/geoist in the country! Also I was pleasantly stunned to follow your tinyurl to that article about Hugh Lusk’s talk in New York, I read it a few months ago (I don’t recall how I found it though) and thought it far too obscure to ever stumble across again. It is strangely depressing though to discover that one of the best examples of a Georgist economy might well be my own country, only 110 years ago and long forgotten.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
trings says:
“The lack of both capital gains taxes is one of the best reasons for bringing to, and keeping. wealth in this country. I seriously believe that if the taxc was imposed, the flight of capital, intellect and brawn to Australia and other countries where wealth is more readily built, would make the annual migration of birds from New Zealand to the Northern Hemisphere seem trivial.”
Not so heavy on the wealth is built talk in relation to property investors. As a rule they don’t create wealth but over time gain it at someone elses expense…. (asset inflation creates a charge elswhere in the economy)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi pm67nz,
I too was starting to think I was the only one with my views in the country as well, although my employer, whose interested in monetary reform has corresponded a fair bit with Georgists who advocate a Georgist Land Tax. I can pass some material hes collected onto you as well. I’m actually looking at getting some funding to develop a computer simulation in order model the effects that a land value tax would have on housing affordabilit and real estate development so we can carraborate our claims of what it would do.
Yeah I don’t know how I managed to stumble across it either, because everytime I try to search for it on google I can’t find it. Luckily I’ve got it saved in my bookmarks and I remember that I’ve posted on several blogs too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea can you please justify why the land and house has increased in value what changed to justify this increase?????
A bit off topic but what is the smartest thing to do in an inflation driven economy the answer get into debt.
Why inflation has this wonderfull ability to reduce debt. Its the reason why buying a house is a good idea. If you buy a house for 200K today in ten years time that debt is worth less not just from paying off the mortgage but also the 10 years of inflation has made the debt worth much less as well.
What is a stupid thing to do in an inflation driven economy save money in a bank since 200k invested in a bank will be worth less in 10 years.
Welcome to the world of debt we live in today but remember debt is good and saving is bad.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip28 Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
> Kahikatea can you please justify why the land and house has increased in value what changed to justify this increase?????
the land can increase in value because the number of people who want property in that area has increased. The location may be more appealing since the cement factory next door closed down and was replaced by townhouses.
A house can increase in value because its architectural style has gone from being unfashionable to being fashionable, or because it has features like native hardwood flooring that used to be easy to obtain but are now in short supply> It may be that the garden used to look barren and windswept, but feels more welcoming now that the trees have grown…
Increasing land value due to more people wanting to live in the area is the most common reason for capital gain, but there are lots of other ways it can happen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SleepyTreehugger, I’m emailable at gmail.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pm67nz,
Whats your email address? pm67nz@gmail.com?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
turnip, the interest rates that you are charged or credited from the bank take inflaton into account, interest rates are composed of he real rate and the estimated average rate of inflation. in the case of a bank loan they overestimate the rate and in the case of a bank deposit they underestimate it. so in effect there has to be a massive change in the rate of inflation in order for your statement to be true. Economics 101; cover your behind, the banks are very good at it.
also, even if inflation wernt taken into account, as long as the interest rate is larger than the rate of inflation; you are still making a profit, in NZ the interest rate far outweighs the inflation rate. though if your meathod of saving was to hide it under your bed you would be correct.
cheers
sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
im surprised to see others who hold views in common with henry george, a rarity indeed.
SleepyTreehugger, any chance of fowarding me that material aswel?
if so, my email is: nemesis@murrow.co.nz
Cheers
Sapient
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The basic problem with henry Georges idea is determining a rent on land isn’t it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SleepyTreehugger, yes: pm67nz@gmail.com
jh, valuers routinely estimate land values on behalf of councils, landlords, insurance companies etc. In many parts of NZ council rates are still based only on the land value, so a land tax isn’t something hypothetical, it is being done right now, only at a very low rate. To a first approximation: land rent = land value x interest rate, and land value = total value – value of improvements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valuers look at sales data don’t they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As far as I know, yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
pm67nz
I tried sending you an email, but gmail doesn’t recognise your address so I couldn’t. Do you have an alternative one I can send an email to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is my one and only e-address and I swear it does work!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)