by frog
It’s interesting news that Heather Roy is being discussed as the likely Minister of Consumer Affairs. You would expect Act, with its focus on properly functioning free markets and consumer rights, to have similar kinds of policies to the Greens in the area of consumer affairs – that is a strong focus on consumers right to know what it is they are buying so that consumers can make informed decisions, and the market can operate effectively and efficiently. Classical liberal economic theory is premised on an informed and rational consumer. In a liberal state, citizens can exercise their rights meaningfully only if they are adequately informed.
However, that has not been Act’s record to date. It has continually favoured businesses’ right to obfuscate and confuse over consumers’ right to information. It will be interesting to see whether Roy, if appointed to this post, continues to oppose measures such as country of origin labelling or whether she takes what I would suggest would be a more liberal line, and advocates consumers the right to make rational informed market place choices.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Thu, November 13th, 2008
Tags: act party, consumer affairs, Country of Origin Labelling, Heather Roy, liberal, right to know
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Perhaps the Greens could have had Consumer Affairs – and more seats – had it not made a stupid decision to publicly side with Labour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The scary thing is that, unlike her predecessor, Heather Roy might actually do something in the portfolio.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A true Green party (as in Europe) would have no problem working with a center right party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, you made your choices, Frog.
In the end, dismissing Key & National was more important to you than food labeling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the movie wall street Michael Douglas plays the part of a billionaire venture capitalist who preaches “Greed is good, Greed is healthy”………..
The only truth about “new right” neo libral ideology is that in principle it is based upon greed. Promoting notions of competition, free market, minimal state intervention, all favours the financially healthy punters in society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, please.
So, Russia favoured the poor, did it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of course consumers can always make a decision if the producer decides NOT to provide information, by refusing to buy such a product. After all why does a consumer have ANY right to dictate what a producer produces?
If I make a product and tell you nothing about its origins, then I take the risk that you care enough about that to not buy it. If you don’t like it, then why you should force me to put a label on it? You make your own and do it your way.
Just another example of the Greens advocating force. Nobody forces a consumer to buy anything, so nobody should force a producer to produce anything either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As Toad said Heather Roy might actually do something as Minister of Consumer Affairs. That will be a pareto improvement for everyone and in itself should be applauded.
I support the comments from libertyscott with the additional comments.
If a man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organised kind prevails, he cannot obtain the full knowledge that would make mastery of the events possible. He will therefore have to use what knowledge he can achieve, not to shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate the growth by providing the appropriate environment, in the manner in which the gardener does this for his plants … The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson in humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society – a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilisation which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals. (F.A. Hayek, Nobel Memorial Lecture, 1974)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
LibertyScott, this is the kind of unhuman logic seen in the movie “Thankyou for Smoking” where the tobacco lobbyist claims that he cares about children with cancer because he is likely to lose a customer, whereas those lobbying for tobacco controls actually want the kid to die so they can keep their jobs as lobbyists. It is plainly back to front but has internal coherence because it ignores the reality of society.
The source of your error, I think, is in the compartmentalisation of consumer behaviour into individual consumer actions, ignoring the broader social, cultural, and historical factors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland… all favour the poor better than we do.
Check their GINI index.. check ours.. It isn’t like we’re doing as well as we ought to be.
Liberty… the power of the individual consumer to decide what to buy/not-buy in a limited economy like NZ is, well, LIMITED. If I decide to “not” buy from the two stores that stock something because neither provides information then I simply can’t have it at all. That is ALSO a form of force, exerted on me by a quasi-monopoly of merchandisers.
Your model of the market assumes I have an EQUAL power to produce/import the goods required to support my own production in some other area of the economy. This is absolutist rubbish. Requiring all consumers to up-end their lives and livelihoods to build an alternate supply chain entails capital, start-up costs and risks, and time. It duplicates the work done by the original vendor with the single goal and advantage of actually knowing where stuff comes from? As though that advantage would pay for all of the costs of starting the business? As though we could all defer all our purchases until we’d set it all up?
No Liberty. There is something deeply wrong with this position of yours.
The provision of origin labeling and content labeling is accepted in every country but the one you are imagining, where melamine laced milk would be a reason for revenge but never a reason for regulation. Forgive me if I don’t share that vision of the ideal future.
Hunger forces the consumer to buy. Cold forces the consumer to buy. You don’t have to force us, the market exists because there is a demand as you WELL know. With two supermarket chains in a duopoly the ability to not buy from either is very limited, particularly for city dwellers.
If the people of the country, in parliament assembled, determine that there should be CoOL, what part of that is not democratic? The part where the merchant (who is outvoted) is required to label his/her product, as every merchant is so required. The playing field remains level for the merchant, everyone has to meet the requirement. The cost (such as it is) can and will be passed on to the consumers eventually.
The only thing that irks you is that it is the State that is telling the businessman to do something. It also tells the businessman to pay taxes, avoid fraud and treat people fairly. I am sure you reject those “impositions” as well.
History shows that no HUMAN society build on the principles you espouse has ever survived long enough to be recorded…
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry… content labeling is accepted everywhere … origin labeling was intended to be written as “similar to”.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip – nothing is stopping you opening up your own store with labelled goods. If you believe in it, do so, you may find that you have a market and will earn a premium. I will then applaud you for taking on the risk of providing a better service and enhancing the welfare of all New Zealanders.
go on – if you believe in it, there is no reason to not do so.
or is there something holding you back?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What would Hayek say”
Hayek is not talking about origin labeling. He is waxing philosophical about the unknowable. Where sh!t comes from is easily known, and telling the rest of us about it isn’t an insuperable barrier to free commerce or an unreasonable demand of the population of a small nation on its corporate masters. If aimed at relevance I think you missed.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes this is correct that Hayek is making a philosophical point not a generalised commandment not to interfere with markets.
If you view country of origin labelling as a public health issue it takes on greater significance.
However I suspect that some of the extremist Libs would say it’s OK to sell poor people poisoned food as it is up to the consumer to work out if something will kill them or not.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nothing is stopping you opening up your own store with labelled goods
Goodness. I just explained this and you are pushing the same barrow.
I ALREADY HAVE A JOB WHICH I AM GOOD AT!!! Why I should be required to go into a business which I have no particular talent for, to sell stuff I have little interest in EXCEPT as a consumer, with the piddling premium over already established stores that being able to know where stuff comes from might command as my only incentive… Yeah… Right.
What holds me back is sanity…
The work of starting up a new store is a VERY high step to ask people to take to simply be allowed the luxury of knowing what the fnck they are buying and from where. If commerce is regulated to require it, the cost is far lower for all of us and far more in keeping with the value received.
Aristotle held the view that the brain was an organ which had the principle function of cooling the blood. I didn’t think much of his theory until I saw this post of yours.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What is important is that country information is correct, i.e. not selling something as NZ made if all the parts come from China and it takes 2 minutes to put them together. But leaving off country information altogether entirely should be allowed. If customers care as much as the Greens claim, they won’t buy those products.
Most NZ made goods are already labelled as such, so this is really just a sneaky attempt to use consumer protection laws to increase the cost of imported goods. If given the choice, consumers often prefer cheaper imported stuff to NZ made stuff. It does not benefit consumers to deny them that choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nigel what’s your opinion on cheaper imported food as opposed to NZ-grown? Still think that it’s OK to leave the consumer in the dark about where their food comes from?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russia didn’t favour the poor
Russia did not have a greed is good policy
Therefore Greed-is-good policies do favour the poor
Yes I can see the logic. Rather like this one
A cat is not a reptile
Cats do not have opposable thumbs
Therefore reptiles have opposable thumbs
QED
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bjchip – your job is therefore more important to you than country of origin labelling. Thanks for the off the cuff dismisall – good to see the game of playing the man rather than the issue picks up on the tradition of aristotle relying on deductive reasoning rather than moving forward in science – Aristotle did afterall consider that the earth was the centre of the universe. This is not to dismiss the value of aristotle, just that we learn more every day and we should be open to allowing discovery, we also don’t know where our fields of inquiry will take us – something that is matched in the views of Hayek – we don’t know what others will want and what new things will be devised tommorrow and nor should we constrain people from exercising the opportunity to find out. I would have thought a person with an interest in science would have remembered this and the value that was provided to the world by the development of mathematical logic over aristotles deductive logic.
The issue is about determining what is adequate information – how much information is adequate, who decides? is it your version of adequate information, mine or my neighbour down the road?
Many people that I work with have a preference for NZ grown goods, they expect products to provide this information and choose not to buy those products that fail to contain information. This has the effect that producers provide them with information – right down to the level of the particular property the cow came from and how it is feed and cared for. People pay a premium for this because they value it.
Other people (including members of my family) have lower incomes and are unwilling to pay a premium. They like shopping at the warehouse, reasonable to good quality at a price that enables them to either save income for other choices, or spend more on food, power. By expressing their choices this way they inform business about what matters and what opportunities exist to supply them with the goods and services they need.
The consumer does have rights to ask and contract for goods and services – that already exists. You as a consumer can exercise that an ensure you receive the products you want, from the location you want. The final problem for you might be that you don’t then want to pay the price for that good or service – in essence your asking someone to provide you with a subsidy. If that subsidy is given to you – are you then happy to give them a subsidy in return – or do you just want to enhance yourself at the expense of someone else?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1
Fair enough, but I was wondering what the alternative was?
A free market does a better job of providing for the poor than the alternatives tried thus far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ – you are missing the fundamental basis of free-markets: In a free market, power is determined by the ability to spend, therefore only the rich have the right to choices.
If you aren’t rich, it’s your own fault, either for choosing your parents badly or not having the characteristics and skills that the free-market selects for.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>
the power of the individual consumer to decide what to buy/not-buy in a limited economy like NZ
>
LIMITED? in New ZEaland!!
You are Joking aren’t you??
Go look at limited economies (I’d suggest Sri Lanka as I know it well though I am not Sri Lankan). Here in New Zealand we have ABUNDENT CHOICE, so much so that it probably adds about 10% to our costs because of the wastage and low volume-purchasing power!
Want an example or three? eleven different types of CORNFLAKES in my local supermarket! Out-of-season vegetables EVERY SEASON also in my local supermarket! Eighteen different types of bread on the selves of my local supermarket!
Want to understand limited – try ONE kind of rice, as the only form of carbohydrate in the local village store! That’s limited!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam,
Must be an inconveneince to be poor in New Zealand and have to eat all that KFC, while not having the ability to grow their own vegetables.
Seems like the “poor” are lacking in spirit (non liquer type) and attitude.
I suggest that you look at the priorities the “poor” have towards where their “small” amount of money goes, and try educating them to a brighter future.
Is that not what anachists are about, looking after society better?
Or do you envisage reducing the gap between rich and poor to zero?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Gerrit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bj
let’s look at this GINI thing for a minute. I looked it up, and got this . . . . .
>>
The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure of inequality of income distribution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: A low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income). The Gini coefficient requires that no one have a negative net income or wealth. Worldwide, Gini coefficients range from approximately 0.232 in Denmark to 0.707 in Namibia. Most free market nations have a Gini coefficient between.25 and.50.
The Gini index is the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage, thus Denmark’s Gini index is 23.2% (Mathematically, this is equal to the Gini coefficient of 0.232, but the percentage sign is often omitted in the Gini index.)
>>
This is interesting as it starts with a presumption that wealth should be equally distributed, and so that distribution needs to be measured. Something that Italian statistician, and communist party activist, Corrado Gini would have believed back in 1912 when he published his paper on it.
Now let’s look at some of the countries with the ‘best’ education, welfare, health, and law & order status in the world today and how they stack up on this type of thinking.
The first country that comes to mind (for me) is Saudi Arabia. I think they must have a coefficient of 1oo%, as the oil income is definitely in the hands of a very few Saud family members, and yet they have excellent free education for all citizens, including fully funded state study (including accommodation and living allowances) at off-shore universities, etc.. They also have a top decile world class, and free to all residents, health system; a citizens welfare system that provides in excess of the second quartile standard of living in New Zealand (e.g. if you don’t have a house they will give you the land and enough money to build one appropriate for the ‘average’ Saudi family). Law and order is of a standard where the crime rate per thousand resident years is somewhere down in the 0.0001 area.
Looking at other countries, I see that we are rated at 36.2 (out of 100), our company in the 35-37 inclusive range are
Latvia 37.7
Vietnam 37
Mauritius 37
Uzbekistan 36.8
India 36.8
Benin 36.5
Azerbaijan 36.5
Indonesia 36.3
NZ 36.2
Poland 36
Lithuania 36
Algeria 35.3
Australia 35.2
S Korea 35.1
Salubrious company indeed.
I hate to say this to a poster whose thoughts often intrigue me, but I’m afraid I can’t put this measure to any sensible use whatsoever in my consideration of Godsown’s political and social situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good governance will provide balanced perspectives in social and economic policy. I would hate to see extreme poverty in NZ, more homeless people, children with no food at home…………..
There is too much research and literature that emphasizes the importance of social responsibility. Concepts of consumerism and competition just do not address the social responsibility issues
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm…
Gini is and has always been a single measure of “fairness” within a nation. It does not speak to the wealth of the nation, however it DOES speak to the question of wealth inequality within the nation.
Nor does it start with the assumption that wealth SHOULD be equally distributed (Gini of 0). Certainly I do not start with that assumption.
It measures the inequality…. or the effectiveness of wealth redistribution in the society.
So as a measure of well-being overall, it is incomplete. Which is probably why we’re not seeing eye-to-eye, at least not yet.
Looking at the more complete list and picking on those with a gini below 30 we see…
Austria 29.1
Belarus 29.7
Bosnia-Herzegovina 26.2
Bulgaria 29,2
Croatia 29
Czech Republic 25.4
Denmark 24.7
Finland 26.9
Germany 28.3
Hungary 26.9
Japan 24.9
Norway 25.8
Slovakia 25.8
Slovenia 28.4
Sweden 25
Ukraine 28,1
Most all of these are regarded as quite civilized and decent places to live, though Belarus comes as a surprise.
Nobody listed gets to zero. Not even close. I reckon that is as it should be. You noted the company we keep now. I reckon cutting 5-10 points off that would be a good thing. Not likely, but it would be good.
Sort out the higher ones then… the measure relates quite simply to fairness. The higher ones tend to be less happy places to live if you are poor with less opportunity to do well but more opportunity to do very very well. You can get a few people much richer in a country with a high GiNI. You can get more people well-off if it is lower.
You’d be wrong about Saudi-Arabia. Wealth IS distributed outside the royal family… it is effectively a welfare state.
The point was being made about favouring the poor. This is a way of figuring out which countries do that… and which do not.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
Thanks for all that. However, if like me, you want to promote the idea that New ZEaland is a country full of opportunity, in which you can by your own actions become very rich and successful, why would cutting 5-10 points off our GINI be a good thing? I would rather we have a midpoint income about twice what it is now, with the same cost of living and 5% ‘super rich’, than everyone on the same plus or minus 10% with a cost of living higher than today!
I guess this is a point we shall have to agree to disagree on. Never mind, most of your positions and points are more than worth the energy and time to read, mark and understand!
Have a great evening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“eleven different types of CORNFLAKES in my local supermarket! ”
You mean different brands? Is there any difference in the actual product?
“I suggest that you look at the priorities the “poor” have towards where their “small” amount of money goes, and try educating them to a brighter future.
Is that not what anachists are about, looking after society better?”
Yup and I spend plenty of my time educating people to grow their own vegetables.
But this doesn’t alter the fact that it is the rich who have power in a free market (both at the production and consumer end), and will be the arbitrators of what is produced and how it is marketed.
“Or do you envisage reducing the gap between rich and poor to zero?”
Yes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sam – how do you do it? (spend plenty of your time educating people to grow their own vegetables)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“A free market does a better job of providing for the poor than the alternatives tried thus far.”
Okay, thats a more logical premise. But I would have thought a mixed economy (ie with constraints on the market) was better than either. After reading “the dispossesed”, I am more and more attracted to an anarchist society, but I realise in its pure form it is probably not going to happen. But thats no reason why we can’t go some way towards more equality of power and authority based on ability and respect, not inherited wealth by either individuals or corporates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “In a free market, power is determined by the ability to spend, therefore only the rich have the right to choices. ”
So very wrong.
To quote Schumpeter: “The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls”
Yes but it can only do so by creating an underclass. Silk stockings for New Zealand workers are now produced by sweated labour in China, with a cost to these workers and the environment. In the same way the average New Zealander can now afford meat 3 times a day, at great cost to animals, the environment and their own health.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1,
- “Yes but it can only do so by creating an underclass”
No, it doesn’t.
They lived in real poverty before. These factories offer them a better alternative. And more than that, they are just the first step to real wealth. It is how Hong-Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea got started. Where would you rather live, North or South Korea?
Capitalism does not create or require an underclass. As Chinese wages rise, so the economics of mechanisation and automation change, which in turn improves productivity which is passed on again in higher wages.
Clothes are only made cheaply in China because their productivity is so low. But that is changing, largely thanks to Western capital investment and technical input. Same in India.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Schumpeter – that’s rich! Remind me again of who it is that labours over the production of the stockings – the factory girls or the queens?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
factory work – the gateway to a brighter future! Mechanisation and automation lead to .. a leisurly class of recreators, lotus eaters … wat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Capitalism does not create or require an underclass. As Chinese wages rise, so the economics of mechanisation and automation change, which in turn improves productivity which is passed on again in higher wages.”
Yes, but this is only possible with an ever increasing consumption of resources and ever expanding economy, so it is not creating a truly sustainable society.
It is at this point I think the greenies are on to something, can anyone explain how an economy can keep expanding indefinately?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
- “Remind me again of who it is that labours over the production of the stockings – the factory girls or the queens?”
I think the point is clear. Capitalism didn’t invent rich people. They were already there and they already had the silk stockings and everything else. What capitalism has done is allow us workers to be able to afford a vast range of products previously only within reach of the wealthy.
- “factory work – the gateway to a brighter future! Mechanisation and automation lead to .. a leisurly class of recreators, lotus eaters … wat?”
It leads to the standard of living we enjoy in the West, which compared to even 100 years ago is astonishingly high.
It sounds like you don’t know when you are well off and don’t count your blessings. Or maybe you have some romantic idea of peasant life in China and ignore the short, hard lives, the high infant mortality, the back-breaking hours in the rice fields etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Why do you say that capitalism requires “an ever increasing consumption of resources and ever expanding economy” and must keep on “expanding indefinately”?
Capitalism just ensures the most efficient and effective use of whatever resources are deployed. It doesn’t require expansion any more than an inefficient centrally-controlled one does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK I’ll wade into you GINIuses.
What Saudi Arabia has is a massively positive balance of payments, what NZ has is a massively negative balance of payments. That’s THE difference. This election, as with all others, everyone harps on about growth, growth, growth. You just don’t hear anyone say that all we have to do is turn our importing entrepreneurs into exporting entrepreneurs and, given time, NZ will be on the up-and-up. Growth is not a pre-requisite for this to work, it just needs a realignment.
As more money comes into our country than goes out we all get richer.
The GINI can then go up or down, either way there is more for all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Capitalism just ensures the most efficient and effective use of whatever resources are deployed. It doesn’t require expansion any more than an inefficient centrally-controlled one does.”
So why does modern economic doctrine seem so focussed on growth?
Why when growth slows or stops does it seem to have such a disastrous effect on peoples lives?
It seems to me that this would reveal an unsustainable economy in the long term with wealth built on fairly shaky foundations.
I am not claiming to have much of a knowledge of economics I am just calling it as I see it from reading comments on this thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat
I suspect that Shunda means that Capitalism as it is practiced on a foundation of debt-based, fractional-reserve fiat currency has that requirement.
Which it does. It isn’t related to the debt per-se, but to the fact that the money is created based on debt.
Please follow this link and view… it is long enough but (except for the end bits) it is appallingly accurate. I was nauseous for a day after seeing it.
http://www.notjustnotes.ws/howbanksrobyou.htm
The expansion IS necessary.. but it isn’t directly the failing of Capitalism IMHO, it is related to the monetary structures around it.
Nor is it the case that we should not have banks and bankers. The thing is that they should NOT be given the power to create money from nothing.
This would no-doubt restrain growth, but it would also limit malinvestment and bubble economies. Thomas Jefferson said it too –
I” believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
The “Federal Reserve” is a private bank.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“As more money comes into our country than goes out we all get richer.”
But on a world scale if every country did that wouldn’t we end up simply consuming all the resources and ending up with a whole lot more product than buyers? I know that is over simplified, but what stops the whole thing snowballing to a catastrophic end? how is it sustainable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“wat dabney Says:
“They lived in real poverty before. These factories offer them a better alternative. And more than that, they are just the first step to real wealth. It is how Hong-Kong, Japan, Singapore and South Korea got started. Where would you rather live, North or South Korea?
“Capitalism does not create or require an underclass. As Chinese wages rise, so the economics of mechanisation and automation change, which in turn improves productivity which is passed on again in higher wages.
“Clothes are only made cheaply in China because their productivity is so low. But that is changing, largely thanks to Western capital investment and technical input. Same in India.
Touche.
Humanity, unfortunately, has a short memory. Not long after the fall of one form of totalitarianism, Nazism (aka National Socialism), we witnessed the rise of another: Maoism. This manifested itself in the Cultural Revolution.
Mao’s ideals are the same as those reflect in some posts on this thread, in terms of ‘reducing poverty’, ‘closing the rich-poor gap to zero’, ‘removing the underclass’ etc.
Well, we all know what happened. Growth stopped, innovation was stifled, and infrastructure became paralyzed. Oh yes, and people were persecuted, tortured and killed too. Their crime? Refusing to yield to Mao’s socialist ideals. I lost plenty of family through Mao’s oppressive regime.
Millions starved to death under Mao’s so-called egalitarian, redistributive policies. He left China in ruins. It’s only after Deng Xiao Ping began opening China to the global market did standards of living improve.
Yes, standards of living improved for the poor too. My family that did remain in China under Mao were able to lift themselves out from the poverty trap for the first time ever in their lives. Thanks to international trade, thanks to the deregulating of markets, and thanks to capitalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Strings
“I would rather we have a midpoint income about twice what it is now, with the same cost of living and 5% ’super rich’, than everyone on the same plus or minus 10% with a cost of living higher than today!”
How much higher cost-of-living? Hmmm…. Midpoint income is then ~80K ? Everyone the same plus-minus 10%? Lets call it 70-90. 5% on a megabuck or so… 95% of the people would be within a range of 20K on that income?
I think that’d work out to a GINI under 20 Strings. I can’t figure it exactly right now but I suspect that you’re agreeing with me without knowing.
Personally I would have the inequality LARGER than what you seem to be saying. I reserve the right to be wrong about what you were actually saying, as you may have meant some of it differently than I just understood it.
There not any reason to NOT have wealth. My observation is that the GINI range between 24 and 28 seems to be populated by countries which most people regard as desirable places to live. Even without lots of money. Those countries DO have wealthy people. Not as bizarrely provided for as the wealthy of the USA, but wealth enough for any individual or family.
The question is what to aim at… what countries set an example we like?
Growing the economy so that people can have “more” of everything is more problematical for me. THAT is not sustainable… and may not be required, as the problem with the growing is that it is an artificial requirement of the money base as I point out in the post above.
Not sustainable though, and the trouble from that is the lash that goads me to greater efforts.
respectfully
BJ
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip:
And to reference Ron Paul once again, “the Federal Reserve ought to be disestablished”.
We have some common ground finally, perhaps?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn – I have always recognized SOME common ground with ACT and Libertarianz… Both have I think, a better grasp of the concept of TANSTAAFL than most political hacks in the two big parties.
I also recognize that the question of whether warming is ours and real and requires government action, is not the same as the question of whether to have big or small government. Some libertarians think that because someone accepts the first conclusion and requirement, they automatically want bigger government. It is more correct to argue the proper size of government entirely separately from the question of the science….
I came here from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I know some of the scientists and I have no doubt at all about their commitment to science and truth, and their utter disregard for the political consequences. Some of them are still friends I write to.
So yes, there are some things we can agree on. Particularly with respect to banks and money. However, it is important to note that I am not speaking for the Green party about this. Just me (though I suspect that these exchanges do get noticed).
It is also important to note that I haven’t abandoned my liberal/socialist roots. I prefer the Swedish model to the USAian model when it comes to taxes, wealth-transfers, medical systems and social spending. We won’t agree on MANY things. but that is I think, why there is more than one political party
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn tan
We now live in a democratic modern capitalist state and have learned valuable lessons from history. Notably the importance of the modernised inter linked functions with in a modern society, the important roles big business and the individual play in society. More importantly to govern with stability and inclusivity.
The obvious dangers I see in a modern society are the extremists “left” or “right”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But having family and friends that are dependent on a welfare system I have a social conscience and naturally lean more to the left…………….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Goat:
I agree. Which is why I’m in ACT, not the Libertarianz.
There are extremists in every ideological corner. I met plenty of fundamentalists in the Greens, in the socialist movement, and yes, even amongst the neo-liberals.
I consider myself a pragmatist, rather than a puritan. That doesn’t mean I haven’t got firm principles, however. I’m just not a textbook theorist. For example, I agree with what Ayn Rand has to say, to a large extent. But I wouldn’t necessarily implement all of her ideals in practice. In fact, Objectivism is a pseudo-religion, much like the Ecologism some Green members adhere to – and I’m not one to give much deference to religious zealots.
Some people, for instance, call Roger Douglas an extremist neo-liberal. You’ll be interested to know that some of us within ACT regard him as a socialist. Extremism is therefore one of degree, and largely a perception based on one’s own ideological extremities/positioning.
BJ:
For me, my problem with global warming is the unfettered attributation of blame on humanity. I can quote you scientific research which shows that the Earth’s warming is largely (if not entirely) due to natural phenomenon (I’ll dig it up when I have the time). And this is in response to your post on another thread (which I can’t locate at this moment in time) where you challenge me to produce scientific data to back up my claims. It’s out there; I simply have to find it for you. (I have a bad habit of not bookmarking what I read online.)
On both sides of the debate, you will find scientific data that appears to ‘prove’ either position. I guess, at the end of the day, it simply boils down to which side you choose to believe.
But for me, I’ve ceased believing the mainstream global warming theory. And I’m sick of hearing we humans are to blame for everything that’s going wrong in nature: for changes in the Earth’s temperature, for species going extinct, for rivers drying up etc. Hell, the dinosaurs went extinct on their own, free from human intervention/causation.
I regard the Greens’ stance on global warming as misanthropy in drag. Listening to the Greens and other environmentalists go on about destructive human behaviour is like being ordered to walk down a hall of blame.
But yes, there is common ground between the Greens and ACT re topics like TANSTAAFL and money/banks/debt.
In an ideal world, I’d like to see only ACT and the Greens in Parliament, as we’re the only two major political forces with ideological grounding for our policies/beliefs. The ensuing tug-of-war will then be a playing out of which side’s economic paradigms will work in practice, in a battle of ideas taking place in Parliament. Only then can we decipher which ideology shall prevail.
But until then, we’ll have to continue slugging it out on frogblog.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Goat:
It’s getting late, so unfortunately I cannot go in depth into my take on welfare.
But just to paraphrase ACT’s position on welfare: We will decrease the benefit for the undeserving and increase it for the deserving. (Those on an invalid’s benefit, for instance, will have their benefits increased. Abusers of the system, naturally, will be deprived of their benefit.)
Suffice to say, your family will fall under the category of those ‘deserving’ welfare. Under ACT’s welfare policy, they will therefore not be affected, and in fact may even stand a chance to benefit.
And for the record, it was my social conscience which prompted me to join ACT. I don’t believe that having a social conscience necessitates you being an adherent/proponent of left-wing ideals.
If anything, it’s my belief in self-affirmation and self-determination that made me realise the left’s agenda of welfare dependency does more harm than good. (Incidentally, see today’s NZ Herald for an article about how those afflicted with depression should remain on the benefit no longer than 2 months, lest harm be inflicted on their mental well-being.)
Here’s where I’d like to quote fellow ACT candidate Peter Tashkoff, No. 7 on the List, of Maori ancestry, and candidate for the electorate of Te Tai Tokerau: “ACT is the party of tino rangatiratanga; we believe that every individual should exercise self-determination, through personal responsibility and making informed choices.”
But anyway, I should really catch 40 winks, with the election campaign being over and all. I usually only end up catching about a dozen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn
I know pretty much all the studies that purport to call the situation “natural” and their refutations.
The easiest point to make here is that for it to be cosmic-rays and clouds, or solar flux changes or “other”, it would have to:
First: Explain the most rapid warming we’ve ever detected in the paleoclimate. An order of magnitude faster.
Second: Coincidentally be occurring when we’ve released CO2 into the air 50 TIMES faster than any detected change in CO2 in the paleoclimate.
Third: Explain why the CO2 does not have the effect that the physics demands it have in the atmosphere column, while it replaces that effect.
I don’t just use TANSTAAFL , I also shave regularly with Occam’s Razor.
There’s almost no doubt it is bad and that it is us, among scientists. That you can find any dissent at all among the scientists is not unusual. There are scientists who question general relativity, evolution and gravitation. The entirety of science is done with questioning and testing. Which is why the level of consensus achieved is a signal in itself.
The solutions aren’t easy. The problem of controlling population is one for sociologists to work out and I am not made optimistic by their progress. The engineering solutions I can offer require some intense effort by the USA , China, ESA and Russia, to get Cheap Access To Space (CATS). It isn’t happening. Corporations that profit from the expensive access do seem to have control of the process in the USA.
War seems an all too likely result.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Tan said: But just to paraphrase ACT’s position on welfare: We will decrease the benefit for the undeserving and increase it for the deserving.
Problem is Shawn, who makes the decisions as to who is deserving and who is undeserving? The ACT Party? Bureacrats in the Ministry of Social Development? This sounds more like an authoritarian position than one from the libertarian perspective that ACT purports to come from. A true libertarian position would be to implement a Universal Basic Income that everyone receives without having someone sitting in judgment of whether they are deserving or not (and to claw it back through taxation from those who don’t need it). That is an idea that the Green Party wants to explore.
ACT is the party of tino rangatiratanga; we believe that every individual should exercise self-determination, through personal responsibility and making informed choices.
Tino rangatiratanga is the concept of the collective sovereignty of hapū – it does not relate to individuals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Shawn makes a good point, how can anybody defend those who steal benefit monies when they are not deserving?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, I think you, Shawn and I all agree that those who steal benefit money (i.e. obtain it by deliberately misrepresenting their circumstances ) should be identified, have their benefit stopped, be required to repay the arrears, and at least in serious instances, be prosecuted.
That is a different issue from categorising some beneficiaries as “deserving” and some as “undeserving”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn,
If scientists were talking about global warming on Titan, I’m sure there would be hardly any “deniers”; people would think it was interesting, and then get on with their lives.
The problem is global warming is happening on Earth, and the consequences affect many aspects of our lives. It therefore becomes a political problem as well as a scientific problem. The politicians and others will need to decide what actions will be taken, if any, so that society can cope with global warming.
The scientist’s job is to simply deliver the message. Your problem (and Wat Dabney, Big Bro et al.) is that you are not separating the science from the politics. You can criticise the politics, the science or both, but you need to recognise they are separate issues. I suspect that many of the “deniers” are actually unhappy about the political actions being taken to address global warming. If they kept the science and politics separate it might be possible to have more fruitful discussions on blogs such as this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How is it different?
Those who make no effort to find work or are long term beneficiaries should be investigated and given a very blunt ultimatum, find work or lose your benefit.
This will then allow us to give much more to the few genuine sickness and invalid beneficiaries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
While I can happily agree “that every individual should exercise self-determination, through personal responsibility and making informed choices” I have problems with people like Phil U, who has made an informed determination to adopt a welfare based life-style. There are many more like him who chose to live off the ‘sweat of my brow’, and vociferously complain when I receive tax relief and they don’t receive an increase in their welfare payment (a thing they call ‘wrong”).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, it is already a statutory condition of entitlement to unemployment benefit that the beneficiary has to be not in full-time employment, but seeking it; is available for it; is willing and able to undertake it; and has taken reasonable steps to find it.
What more do you want? Oh, you just said it – cut off the benefits of those who don’t find work soon enough, even thought they are taking reasonable steps to find it. That will be great for the crime rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s just typical Toad, you always find a reason to not do something rather than think about ways that might get these bludgers off the benefit.
The system is failing Toad, until recently there has been no excuse for anybody to be one of the “long term unemployed” yet you and the Greens seem to think that these parasites have a right to bludge from the rest of us.
Working for the dole is a start, as soon as you start making people work for the money they receive from the rest of us the sooner you will see these same bludgers get off their backsides and find real work.
The example used by Strings is a case in point, your very own Phil U chooses to steal from the rest of us yet I have not heard one Green party supporter condemn him for his theft, welfare should not be given out without strict conditions and long term beneficiaries should be made to do something in return for the money they steal from us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U is not one of ours. He is not permitted to join the Party (for reasons other than his employment status, I might add).
The evidence shows that forcing people to work for the dole actually decreases a person’s likelihood of finding paid employment.
I’m all for state funded job creation – at minimum wage (or better) and with the protections afforded by the Employment Relations Act, Holidays Act etc – to get the long-term unemployed into paid employment. So is the Green Party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ
Good morning to you.
To clarify an earlier point ==>
I would rather . . . (this) . . . . than (that) – not this WITH that!
If we double the current cost of living, and have incomes within +/- 10% of today’s average wage, we get disaster for all, but a better (by your perspective) GINI –was my position
>
Growing the economy so that people can have “more” of everything is more problematical for me
>
Here’s the conundrum!
I would like the children of a family in (say) Ethiopia to have a standard of living as good as the one my children enjoyed (the oldest is 40). . For this to happen I can either send one of the families there money, knowing that they can’t get the things that my children had a generation ago in Ethiopia, or purchase goods made in and by Ethiopians and enable them to lift their standard of living through their own efforts.
This ‘lifting’ of the standard of living is what has spread through the world ever since the industrial revolution, the latest example of great success is China, before that there were Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India and a host of others, radiating out from the UK where the Steam Engine started the revolution.
For this lifting to eventually cover the entire globe, the ‘have countries’ must have room in their consumption for additional goods provided by the ‘have-not-and-want-some’ countries. This we call ‘growth’ for want of a better word. In fact, the real growth isn’t as high as it would seem, because much of it is achieved by exchanging ‘services’ for specie, and the only ‘real growth’ in my opinion is growth in production of GOODS that others wish to purchase. As you will know, the ‘haves’ don’t want to work for ‘low’ wages, so they shift to services and high IP creation, leaving the ‘have-nots’ to do the producing.
NOW FOR THE PROBLEM. We, the world of ‘haves’ have not yet managed to find an equitous way to value services, and so we create vast disparities in the distribution of income from the goods we do produce. A ‘good with people’ person, with no great intellect, can sell houses for $20,000 a pop, and as recently as last year there were people of this ilk selling one or two a week each! A stock-broker, who has access to a ‘rich prick’ can make several millions a year just telling the rich-prick to buy or sell on their whim. A road sweeper can labour in the early morning in the dust and detritus of society and take home $7.50 per hour. While not for one minute suggesting that these people should all earn the same, I do think that we have yet to ascertain an equitable and appropriate ‘value measurement’ system for these, and all other, services. When we do, and when we achieve a position where an idea that generates net income for the country, and work for many, is worth more than a clip-of-a-ticket-on-its-way-past-the-desk, we will have a world where the minimum life-style is at an acceptable level. At that time we will also be able to abandon ‘growth’ (in its current definition,) and adopt another measure of national success; but until then we have to live with what we have got. The only good thing about today’s credit crunch is that it brings this issue closer to recognition, as no value was ‘created’ by the sale of mortgage derivatives, it was just another way to clip-the-ticket!
I look forward to your views
BTB, JPL was a favoured client of mine when I was CPO at Arthur D. Little. HAppy memories.
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The evidence also shows that paying bludgers to do nothing also creates the likes of the Kahui’s.
I am not suggesting that the state pays the minimum wage to bludgers, if they want the minimum wage then they can find a job, I want them working for the money they currently steal from me, if nothing else it will send a message to their kids that sitting at home and being paid for doing nothing is not an option.
What you need to accept Toad is that the current way of doing things does not work, we need a complete change and we need to send a message to the next generation of kids that you must work for what you want.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“sam – how do you do it? (spend plenty of your time educating people to grow their own vegetables)”
I’m part of a community gardening project (the website seems cranky at present but this is the general outline: http://wcgn.collective.org.nz/?q=node/3 ).
“Extremism is therefore one of degree, and largely a perception based on one’s own ideological extremities/positioning.”
Yup – and the political environment – the media dubs Labour ‘centre left’ but pre-1984 it’s current policies would have been widely seen as part of the nutty right.
“- “factory work…
It leads to the standard of living we enjoy in the West, which compared to even 100 years ago is astonishingly high.”
So present capitalism has provided a better standard of living than past capitalism? True in some places, not true in others. In any case, I don’t think you can ignore the impacts of trade unionism and redistributive policies in ensuring factory girls could afford silk stockings.
Currently, the factory jobs tend to move towards cheap labour. If Chinese labour becomes too expensive, the factories will move elsewhere and the wages will eventually fall. I recall a shoe manufacturer telling me (straight after a rant about what a nice company they were and how well they treated their workers) that they were moving their factories from the Philippines to India as wages in the former had risen too much.
Free-market capitalism produces a merry-go-round. Those countries that got rich a hundred years ago by dominating manufacturing (having hugely rediuced living standards i countries such as India nd China by wrecking their manufacturing bases) are now falling behind again as jobs move elsewhere.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks sam and good luck with the community gardening. We’re doing that here also and might have some ideas for you. We’ve moved from the ‘allotment’ model toward the permaculture orchard/garden, due to ease of management and involvement with school children who benefit from the more diverse ecology of the permagarden. We’ve ducks and hens free ranging, wetland and pools for papyrus (for paper) and raupo (for carbon bulk etc.) Also a focus on edible perenials (sun chokes, ulluco, anu, cardoons etc).
re: silk stockings … do either queens of factory girls NEED silk stockings?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Turnips simple plan to fix the benefit system in NZ
- Scrap the dole
- Scrap the DPB
- Scrap the Sickness benefit
- Replace the DPB with a childcare allowance (chase down parents who don’t pay any child support).
- Replace the dole with unemployment insurance that lasts for six months and can be extended up to 12 months. Once you find work, you pay a higher tax in order to pay back the money you borrowed.
- Sickness, genuine people may collect a sickness benefit but it would need to be determined that no work can be performed by the individual, re-train people so they can work in a different industry.
Finally allow the government to sue on behalf of individuals who have been injured as a result of a person or organizations incompetence. The government can only sue to recover the costs of the sickness benefit paid to the individual as well as medical expenses.
Less tax, less government equals a better and more prosperous New Zealand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
delusions of granduer or just dangerous extremist ideals ?
I think a bit of both
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, we’re more ‘permaculture’ than allotment, we have some ‘individual’ plots which seem a good way of getting newcomers involved (people new to gardening often think they will mess things up, so are overly cautious in the communal plots. An ‘individual plot’ lets them experiment and they don’t worry about messing up the communal stuff. Usually they drop the indiviidual plot after a while and just do communal stuff.
“sun chokes, ulluco, anu, cardoons”
Thank God for America! (though I’m not mad about Jerusalem Artichokes/sun chokes, the only vegetable my mum fed me I didn’t like) Where do you get the ulluco, etc from?
Yeah, we’d like to get poultry, but it’s very much a part-time garden, so probably not practical at the moment. Ideally we’d all live there. Where abouts are you?
“Replace the dole with unemployment insurance that lasts for six months and can be extended up to 12 months. Once you find work, you pay a higher tax in order to pay back the money you borrowed.”
An incentive to not find work, run up a debt, and declare bankruptcy.
“allow the government to sue on behalf of individuals who have been injured as a result of a person or organizations incompetence.”
Like many ‘smaller government’ solutions, simply shifts the work from the bureaucracy to the judiciary (one of the most amazingly expensive and bureaucratic branches of government in existence).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
5 billion dollar defict Sam, say hello to benefit cuts in NZ over the next couple of years
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sam – sunny coastal southland. We’ve an incredibly bright young gardener here, devising innovative methods for maximum vegetable production, doing things like using rye and vetch combos to establish windproof micro climates for planting out tomatoes etc, growing cardoons, black parsley and high mallow en masse to create masses of carbon for soil building, rejecting common brassicas that need too much care in favour of kales, structure-free gardens (no raised beds) focus on Asian vegetables which are more suitable than European ones, a whole lot of things that might excite you. I can send photos if you have a email address, or put you in touch with him (Adam). Our poultry ran separately from the food garden, but I’ve let them through now that annual seedlings are robust enough and they are delighted. They roost in the neighbours trees that overhang the garden
Ulluco can be bought a supermarkets now (‘earth gems’) anu (two types – ask around – if you have no luck, we have some) cardoons – Kings Seeds/ Trade Me or us. There are a lot of other really promising plants coming on line now.
If you are interested;
http://www.sces.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
benefit cuts are the complete opposite/wrong way to go..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/one-easy-step-john-key-could-take-to-stimulate-the-economy/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Looks great. I’m kinda keen on raised beds as the weeding is both less and easier, any particular reasons for rejecting them? The only brassica I really get into is cavallo nero – easy to grow and generally pest resistent. Sometimes red cabbage for pickling.
E-mail me at sam@cid.org.nz.
“5 billion dollar defict Sam, say hello to benefit cuts in NZ over the next couple of years”
Knock the military on the head, cut top dog public servant’s salaries, scrub a few perks and top of the range arts funding, replace ministerial cars with scooters, no new roads and there’s $5 billion easy…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
cheers sam – I’ll send pictures and see if I can talk you into a better way to manage your gardens
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“toad:
“A true libertarian position would be to implement a Universal Basic Income that everyone receives without having someone sitting in judgment of whether they are deserving or not.”
This isn’t libertarianism, toad; it’s communism. Paying everyone the same despite differences in circumstances is anything but libertarian. Where are the incentives to cease reliance/dependency on the benefit?
Those deemed undeserving will be those who have been ripping the system off. You have already expressed agreeance that abusers of the system ought to be made accountable. So why the opposition to the term ‘underserving’ being used on these perpetrators? Too un-PC, perhaps?
“Tino rangatiratanga is the concept of the collective sovereignty of hapū – it does not relate to individuals.”
I don’t think it’s wise that you substitute everyone else’s interpretations with your own, toad. We’re talking about a Maori individual here who interprets tino rangatiratanga as being commensurate with ACT’s ethos of personal responsibility. Why must he be begrudged of his interpretation, because it doesn’t fit in with your/the Greens’ worldview?
“[I]t is already a statutory condition of entitlement to unemployment benefit that the beneficiary has to be not in full-time employment, but seeking it; is available for it; is willing and able to undertake it; and has taken reasonable steps to find it.”
I can name you (but I won’t) a handful of friends, acquaintances and contacts of mine who are not seeking work, not available for it (too busy playing computer games etc.), rather unwilling and unable to undertake it (a distraction from playing computer games), and have taken no reasonable steps to find full-time employment – yet they continue receiving the unemployment benefit.
One of these guys in particular calls himself an leftie/anarchist. He chides me for my views on welfare reform, whilst he sits on the benefit, refusing to find a job because “some of us just need it, man”. This individual is no longer a friend of mine. The last thing I said to him was:
“It’s people like you who justify the existence of ACT.”
By the way, I caught up with a friend on the weekend, who works in Hong Kong but came back to NZ on the weekend for a holiday. She tells me that in Hong Kong, no political party ever runs a platform of generous and readily available unemployment benefits. The culture in Hong Kong is such that the working class doens’t resent the middle/upper classes, but actually regards them as a goal of where they personally would like to be.
Therefore, if you want to win the hearts and minds of the working class in Hong Kong, you should offer them low taxes (including lowering the top tax rate) and the most minamalist welfare state possible.
It’s a similar situation in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and other South East Asian countries: The welfare state is minimal, or completely non-existent. This encourages people to develop a working mentality, and therefore exercise personal responsibility.
Slowly, we see a cultural shift here in NZ too, with welfare dependency gradually being seen as taboo. About time too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shawn Tan said: This isn’t libertarianism, toad; it’s communism. Paying everyone the same despite differences in circumstances is anything but libertarian. Where are the incentives to cease reliance/dependency on the benefit?
The incentive Shawn, is that a universal basic income is “basic” – ie the minimum possible for people to exist on. So everyone gets a bare subsistence income at about the same level as the unemployment benefit, which is really a pretty miserable amount if you choose to sit on your butt.
If you want more, you work for it, but you pay more tax to offset the universal basic income. Actually, the sensible thing to do would be for everyone to have an individual tax code, taking into account their universal basic income entitlement, so money doesn’t get moved in circles as it does with Working for Families at the moment.
Funnily enough, Roger Douglas’ “flat tax” proposal on earned income, with a UBI factored in, could then be a reality, without catapaulting the already poor into further poverty.
But it needs a capital gains tax too Shawn, to level the playing field so there is not a tax advantage favouring investing in property rather than productive enterprise that actually employs people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shawn,
On face value yes, but what toad proposes is accually quite similar to a tax regime proposed by Milton Friedman; founder of monetirism, libertarian, and as i understand it one of the major influences of Douglas.
The regime to which i make reference is called “negative income tax” and is a very libertarian approach to welfare and taxation. though admitedly at first glance i thought it absurd, i have done alot of research into it and it could work quite well, though i would make afew modifications such as work qualifying it which i feel would make it much more plausable. lol
On the subject of Hong Kong; Georgian Tax; I love it,hong kong generates the majority of its tax through it, does Act support it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please don’t put Milton Friedman and libertarian in the same sentance, Hyeck and the Austrian school but not the monetrists and Friedman,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Your system Toad lacks an incentive to get off your but, the people that Shawn knows can still stay not doing anything sponging off everyone else in society. I will never go for a system that allows a human being to act as a parasite. You are rewarding stupid behaviour why?
Unemployment insurance should exist to help you transition between jobs not something you can sit on for as long as you like.
However I do think a certain amount of your income should not be taxed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If the basic stipend is low, no gamer will be able to afford the bandwidth charges here in New Zealand. They’d HAVE to get off their butts
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Giving to the deserving and not to the undeserving: how very 18th century!
Increasing invalid’s benefit – as a blanket statement this is very patronising too. My daughter (reluctantly) went onto the invalid’s benefit, which she would love to get off. She is allowed to work for up to 15 hours a week and she has managed to find about 4-5 (cleaning houses). Rather than an increase in benefit, she’d prefer a few more hours work that she can do – has signed up with a trust that looks for work for people like her but has yet to find any more work. It’s offensive that it is assumed that most people on benefits don’t want work: most do. It’s also offensive to assume that people on invalid’s benefits cannot or should not work at all – again, many if not most would love to but employers discriminate and workmates abuse anyone ‘different’. And yes, like all other benefits, the invalid one is abated.
Social welfare shouldn’t be a grudging punitive thing, but a recognition of our common humanity and need for survival. Supporting people into real work is more to the point. And if someone is working, forced or not, why should they not get the minimum wage?
While I can see the logic in some of these statements, I find the attitude pretty sickening when I think of how those rules would treat people like my daughter who would just love to be accepted as a normal human being.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)