by frog
Has it come to this?
The Government’s plan to help feed New Zealand’s neediest children is to give money to Telethons.
This is not a policy. It is shameless posturing.
This from the Government’s announcement on Sunday:
Mr Key said the Government has agreed, with funding from the Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Health, to put $320,000 into KidsCan StandTall’s food in schools scheme.
He unveiled the new funding during an appearance on the Big Night In Telethon event.
KidsCan is a charity that aims to feed and clothe children. KidsCan’s founder Julie Helson is a force of nature and has been wildly successful in building her charity. Good on her and good on all the Kiwis who gave money to this weekend’s telethon. It’s proof that most of us still believe in the principle of helping fellow New Zealanders with the basics; food, shelter, clothes.
The thing is, we gave that job to the Government a long time ago. And making sure children in this country have sufficient food was pretty central to what we had in mind when we directed Government to set up a welfare safety net.
Government has abrogated its responsibility when a private charity finds such a need to fill (hundreds of schools on its waiting list) and when there is clearly widespread support from New Zealanders to meet the need (nearly $2m raised just this weekend).
This is not about ‘dole bludgers’ and ‘welfare moms’ or the other hot buttons which distort the debate and, rightly or wrongly, give many New Zealanders cause for pause about the scope of the welfare system. And maybe it is easier to believe there are legions of bludgers than to accept that we have poverty in “God’s Own.” But when we are talking about feeding school children we are at the center of the idea not the margin.
It is a sign our welfare system has failed when the Government is giving to private charities to do its core jobs. And it is a sign our moral compass has failed when the Government can seek praise for its largesse, when John Key can seek public acclaim by showering $300k on the hungry kids, live on national TV. Let them eat cake John, cake I say.
Perhaps some got all warm fuzzy at the news. I got sick to my stomach.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Tue, August 11th, 2009
Tags: julie helson, kidscan, telethon
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It’s cheap, shiney and the public will swallow it a trice!
The perfect act from a cheap and shiney John Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I read Michael laws column in SST, he said he wasn’t giving as NZ has a very generous social welfare sysytem and (so) the telethon was proping up the no-hoper parents (drunks etc).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
John Key was on 60 minutes last night; quite a good persona.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – which one did he use last night?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree – empty posturing.
And I agree with Laws. We’ve already paid once for people who constantly make bad decisions, and I have no intention of paying again (although I notice John has done it for me). We have a very generous welfare state, which is wide open to abuse, and doesn’t link payments to the well-being of the recipients, particularly children.
That is the problem, and money won’t solve it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: We’ve already paid once for people who constantly make bad decisions, and I have no intention of paying again (although I notice John has done it for me). We have a very generous welfare state, which is wide open to abuse…
What absolute rubbish BP. We have a mean and miserly welfare state – one that provides an acceptable standard of living for families in employment, but leaves many without employment and with no prospects of gaining employment in poverty.
It is a welfare state that discriminates through the In Work Tax Credit component of WFF against children of families where there is no adult able to work.
It is a welfare state that abolished the discretionary Special Benefit that could assist people at the bottom of the heap and replace it with the highly regulated Temporary Additional Support that operates according to a formula that provides at best $20 a week less than the formula’s own calculations determine a family needs to live on.
It is a welfare state that cut main benefits in 1991 to levels that people cannot afford to live on long-term, and then offers them debt to the state (which they have to pay back out of their inadequate benefits) when the car or fridge breaks down.
And as it being “people who constantly make bad choices”, how is the beneficiary’s a bad choice when a long-serving employee is made redundant and has to apply for unemployment benefit?
How is it a beneficiary’s bad choice when a father ups and leaves his children, organises his affairs to pay minimal, if any, child support, and the children’s mother has to go on the domestic purposes benefit?
How is it a beneficiaries’ bad choice when he or she suffers from chronic illness that makes ongoing paid work an impossibility?
Of course there is a bit of abuse of the system that occurs – but the system is not designed to permit abuse. The law requires unemployment beneficiaries to look for work. The law requires sickness and invalid’s beneficiaries to provide ongoing medical certification of their incapacity. The law precludes people from receiving a sole parent DPB when they are in a de facto relationship. There’s nothing inherent about the system that permits abuse at all, let alone the widespread abuse that you assert. If there is abuse, and having worked very closely with the system over a number of years, it is through the law not being enforced adequately in some cases, rather than the law being inadequate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>We have a mean and miserly welfare state
Why don’t you, personally, and all your Green mates, volunteer to pay maximum tax rates? Where else is the money going to come from? Oh, that’s right – me and my mates.
>>when a long-serving employee is made redundant
Ever heard of saving for a rainy day? How about employment insurance? How about working for yourself? Why anyone would be so beholden to a single employer is beyond me. That’s poor risk management.
It should be obvious to anyone who isn’t actually mentally retarded that employment can be transitory.
>>How is it a beneficiary’s bad choice when a father ups and leaves his children
I’d come down a lot harder on the fathers. I’d also restructure welfare along the lines of KiwiSaver mixed with personal insurance, to help ensure people only have the children they can afford, rather than socialising that cost out to everyone else.
>>How is it a beneficiaries’ bad choice when he or she suffers from chronic illness that makes ongoing paid work an impossibility?
That can be covered with a state-backed income protection insurance.
They’d receive more than they do now under my scheme, as would single parents.
>>the law requires unemployment beneficiaries to look for work.
Oh please. The law can “require” anything it likes, doesn’t mean people take the slightest bit of notice. Then there’s always the “oh, my back is so sore” rort, perhaps mixed with the “caregiver” rort, and rounded off nicely by the “child with “illness”" rort (……well, he behaves badly…must be ADD)
My scheme would all but eliminate abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I Read Michael Laws….” therein lies the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, that was intelligent.
I read Karl Marx, therein lies the problem. I read FrogBlog, therein lies the problem…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad,
The welfare system has to be miserable as there are noy enough tax payers. Keep harping on about this, but if you want to live within the budget, have a better welfare system and have plenty of tax payers.
Look at how to improve the tradeable sector (down 10%) against the non tradeable sector (up 25%)
When you have done that, the welfare system can be a bit more generous.
Until then, it will continue to disadvantage the recipients simply becasue the lack of money coming into the government coffers from the tradeable sector.
Nobody here seems keen to address that issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens have never been able to explain where the extra money comes from. Apparently, money just “happens”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“We’ve already paid once for people who constantly make bad decisions..”
We are talking about a charity that feeds kids aren’t we? Did the kids choose their parents badly?
Despite all the jokes about the food, I always thought the Brits had something with their old school lunch system. Food is cheap if bought in bulk, bring in some volunteers and cover their expenses to get community involvement (and more members of the community interacting with kids would be good for ascertaining who really is struggling). My main misgiving is whether you’d get buy in from the kids.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Greens have never been able to explain where the extra money comes from. Apparently, money just “happens”.”
Dunno about the Greens, but I recall listing a fairly substantial list of government ‘services’ I reckon could be cut out a little while ago.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Best not mention cutting the EnviroPropogandaInSchools program. They get tetchy about that one….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Could someone please tell me why the welfare state should be designed for people to live on in the long term? Our goal, more than anything, should be to ensure that people don’t need welfare for the long term and can instead find their way back to employment (that is unless there is a good reason why they are on welfare for the long term, for instance, a major injury).
That isn’t a case of a beneficiary’s bad choice. However, if said beneficiary cannot find a job, it might well be due to bad choices, such as failing to keep up with changes in their industry. If a beneficiary is genuinely unable to find work, then they should be placed in further training, and if they don’t keep up with that – sorry, no benefit.
Ever heard of the nice guy/arsehole dichotomy? That would be your explanation for that one.
However, these few instances aside, there are far too many bad choices made by beneficiaries that should not be rewarded. Things like drug addiction, alcohol abuse, unnecessary subscriptions to Sky TV (notice how many Sky TV dishes there are in Glen Innes and Otara), lack of effort at attaining an education, and so on and so on. IIRC, New Zealand spends about 10% of its GDP on welfare, and that isn’t including NZ Super – if that were included, the figure would be closer to 15% of GDP. That is excessive, and our total spending on welfare (NZ Super included) is equal to our spending on health and education.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Econoschools for every child – teach them about the real world, not some airy, fairy environmental cr*p.
BluePeter; You’ve not responded to my question as to how the countries represented at Copenhagen would respond to your recommendation for New Zealand that we present a ZERO as our response to cutting green house gases. What might their response be in terms of trade arrangements, do you think? Hmmm?
Are you afraid of the question?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
it’s called exercising veracity over your information sources Pete – I’d stay away from Karl Marx and Frogblog, if I was an Act or Natty supporter – its not a winning hand – still, the kids reckon it’s all good entertainment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Econoschools for every child – teach them about the real world, not some airy, fairy environmental cr*p.
And can you just imagine the backlash from the far-left! But yes, kids should learn more about economics.
>>in terms of trade arrangements, do you think? Hmmm?
Sounds like blackmail to me. What if they said they wouldn’t trade with us unless we converted to being Islam?
Have they said they would impose sanctions? You’re saying they definately will. And if they do, what is the cheaper option – the sanctions, or paying the scam charges? Perhaps the scam charges are higher? And perhaps China and India will order more of our food, because their Euro suppliers are now bogged down with scam charges of their own?
Questions, questions….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>stay away from Karl Marx and Frogblog
I read across the political spectrum.
No use a blind man trying to find out the truth about an elephant by only holding onto its tail…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes Blue, questions and yet you boldly state that we should do nothing, as if you know the answers!
Odd!
Yes, kids should learn about economics Blue?
No argument there, but environment? Not according to you!
Odder!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If our aim is to make a difference, then we should have no part of this scam, and look at bigger – yet related – problems, like local energy generation and use.
The money would be better spent.
But we’re spending it on a scam, just so we can play “me too”. Comicly, some people think we’ll be seen as “a leader” (lead lemming, presumably) by subscribing to suicidal money wastage.
Earth to New Zealanders: the world doesn’t care who you are, any more so than New Zealanders know or care about the Samburu People.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Earth to New Zealanders.
Means different things to different people, clearly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pete – yeah read on; but you choose to Engage here and, forgive me if I’m wrong, you are Not a Green Supporter – not even close – my point is that apart from his role as the Mere of Woodytown, Mike can’t serve in Parliament, is a ‘Shock Jock’ by trade, and quoting his political plops, is about as profound as quoting Fredd Dagg – actually Dag has quite an edge on ‘im.
So we have a mendacious man (I suppose) quoting a mendacious man here, of all places – of what value is that?
Really- come on – even you can do better than Mikey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just said I agreed with him on this issue. I agree with the Green MPs sometimes, too. Greenfly, even.
Doesn’t mean much, other than some people can’t be wrong all the time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is a point here.
BP is all about zero responsibility for our actions because we don’t make a difference.
This is about to be tested in the real world in a fairly dramatic way over the next quarter-century. Plan on it.
The questions take the form of:
1. How accurately do we know the effect not getting past 20% in emissions reduction. The prediction that it is insufficient comes from some fairly well respected sources but it is not absolutely certain.
2. What is the target people will adopt in 2020 If any? The predicted results indicate that we must THEN go for 80% down in 2050 or we’re toast.
3. How do we identify failure of the limited action taken? Methane Clathrates boiling out of the deep ocean or the tundra? Total loss of the Arctic Ice cap in summer? Massive acceleration of the Greenland ice sheet? There are some indicators, a more well thought through list would be a good idea.
4. What do we do if it is seen to be failing? Shift population centers up slope and away from higher tides and volcanic hot spots. More earthquake proofing.
5. What should we be doing whether or not it looks like failing? These are the highest value projects for us TODAY.
The reasoning here is that there is a level at which BP has a valid point.
Which is that we alone can’t do anything meaningful.
If the planet agrees to 15-20% at Copenhagen it is saying “do a little now and make our children do much more” and it is also front-loading the CO2 increase which gives the CO2 emitted more time to have its way with our climate. It is choosing the most dangerous path possible short of doing nothing at all.
For which advocacy BP deserves credit for punching above his weight as one of the most insistent trolls pimping for irresponsible behavior anywhere on the planet.
However, we can’t alter the decision once it is taken, nor is there any sense in our attempting to exceed it. Since the results stand a good chance of being inadequate, with runaway warming and all the attendant consequences, we need to prepare ourselves for that eventuality.
It would be nice if our kids could sue for what is about to be done to them. When the evidence has finally accumulated to the extent that it can be used in a court of law the people responsible will be dead and buried, and there probably will be far less recourse to legal niceties, as the society is slammed back into settling things with clubs and spears.
The “Age of Stupid” isn’t just a movie.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m trying to work out if that’s a backhanded compliment or a front handed insult….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dont wanna pester you Pete – but I can show you to dozens of people who are wrong all the time – it’s a wonder they know which end to stick the food in – (feel around for teeth darling)
It’s all about where you are coming from – heart of darkness or heart of light? You’ll find the species quite cleaved over this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
one of the most insistent trolls pimping for irresponsible behavior anywhere on the planet.
You’re not sure whether that’s a compliment or an insult?
God help you man!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
I DO pay maximum tax rates. I don’t own an LAQC to rent out some house, so I pay the full freight on every dollar. Moreover, I pay a rate of 60% on each additional dollar through the actions of the benefits clawbacks and before WFF the rate was 90% on the additional dollar.
Your whinging about us lefties not paying tax makes me want to vomit. So does the fact that once someone gets into the CEO class, or wherever, so that the income is over 120K their marginal rate is back down to 39% or more likely 33% on the dollar.
This is common not only here but also effectively in the USA. Anything at all that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the middle class can be expected to be made into law quite promptly.
Funny how that works. Not defending the welfare state as a way of life but I think that you need to revise your guesswork about the politics of greed here in NZ. The greed isn’t that evident at the bottom. It is plenty evident at the top.
How do you think people get to the top anyway.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Truth against Folly
Stereotype against the Individual
No idea? No wonder….good of you to say so anyway
The kids are laughing – and we gonna go play in the sun now
Hope this is at least vaguely recognisable to you.
BJ; We have a layered taxation system that allows the same dollar to be taxed into oblivion – it’s why NZ is a huge commercial vacuum and can’t stand alone financially – I might add that such a system is tyrannical – but we’d be asking the cushioned PSA to ‘get real’, and that ‘can’t be done’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad Says:
“We have a mean and miserly welfare state – one that provides an acceptable standard of living for families in employment, but leaves many without employment and with no prospects of gaining employment in poverty.” etc
the suspicion is that in the public service (and Labour Party/ Green party) many hold an ideological position which sweeps contrary evidence under the carpet.
In designing welfare policy you have to remain objective and the evidience is that couples are making a decision to have children due to the amount of taxpayer transfer, chances of a state house etc. The reality is they can earn the same as a low paid worker while staying at home.
Actions speak louder than words.
Lindsay Mitchell says:
” Social Development Minister Paula Bennett said the rise in numbers on the DPB was a reflection of the job market.
Correct in part but not to the exclusion of anything else.
Bennett implies that the 8,000 increase from June 08 to June 09 is primarily about women losing their jobs. Some, yes. But it is more complex than that.
Or is she actually admitting that when jobs are harder to come by women get pregnant to get on welfare? Or that people break up relationships so they can claim both dole and DPB? I don’t think she is.
In 2008 over 6,200 first-time mothers with babies under 12 months old were granted the DPB. 55 percent were Maori and Pacific. A third were NZ European.
An important reason why the DPB is growing again is increased fertility rates, especially among the young. Throw in, as well, increasing ex-nuptial births, now approaching half of all births.
If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers why, during a period of very low unemployment, did DPB numbers shown relatively little change? The total caseload has averaged around 105,000 for the past decade, with a low of 96,000 and a high of 109,000. It is currently at 104,400. If the job market is the most important influence on DPB numbers then this is as good as it gets.
But she was confident that once the job market had improved, numbers on the DPB would drop again.
Not necessarily. Young mothers entering the system stay the longest. Until National gets a grip on that fact and decides to do something about it, a high DPB toll is here to stay.
I have said it before – the DPB is institutionalised. Numbers on it are affected by more factors than the job market. But if those other factors are not acknowledged, what chance they will ever be addressed?
Finally ask yourself this. If a single mother has been in work and loses her job, why doesn’t she receive the unemployment benefit? Why isn’t she subject to the same conditions as other unemployed people? There is less pressure to work when on the DPB. That’s why. And that is another reason why the Minister’s optimism that the numbers will soon drop again is misplaced.
Posted by Lindsay at 9:26 AM
”
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2009/07/using-recession-to-do-nothing.html
what p*sses me off is that the welfare is everybodies insurance policy but the useless element in society will limit the chances of deserving people getting it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is relevant:
“Ever wondered what a deflationary spiral looks like? Japan sets the agenda again with news that its wages, salaries and bonuses fell (yes fell) a whopping 7.1% in the June quarter from a year ago. That’s the biggest fall on record, the FT reported. This is what happens when you have an ageing workforce, an ossified economy with weak politicians and a massive debt overhang from a property bubble. By the way, the property bubble burst 20 years ago so Japan has now lost 2 decades and it’s getting worse.”
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/top-10-at-10-allan-hawkins-advice-chinas-resources-grab-japanese-wages-fall-71-dilbert/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes JH, and the US looks much the same.
Which is why the “green shoots” are actually more like emissions from some CNBC rectal orifices.
Other shoe due to drop in October-November. From then on I think there will be nothing in the way of growth for another couple of decades… except possibly in terms of inflation. The deflation comes first.
Fixing the currency would be a “good thing”, but the banksters are still running the show.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the answer is to tax the rich ’till they bleed..
and that will happen..eventually..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/a-cure-for-an-ailing-economy-taxing-the-rich/
“..Indeed, during the great depression tax rates for the wealthiest were raised significantly..
.. from 24% in 1929, to 79% in 1936.
Again, it was economic necessity —
–combined with a growing working class insurgency —
– that determined the tax increase..”
79%..eh..?
whoar..!
..that’ll have a few breaking out in a cold sweat..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I disagree phil. Taxing them until they bleed is counter productive. Tax them, yes. Tax them fairly and progressively, yes. ‘Til they bleed, no. We’re all in this together phil. Rich does not necessarily equate with evil. Far too simplistic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No wonder you’re stuck where you are, Phil.
My accountant can easily make me look “poor” if I so wish, and with that sort of incentive, every other person with an accountant would do the same. Most MPs run the same asset protection structures.
So your take would likely be less than it is now.
In any case, most would surely have left for Australia, leaving you to eat your own excrement.
Have you considered that people might be rich for a reason? There are thieves at every level of society, but most rich people are rich because they provide what others want to pay for.
And if they stop doing that…
Dependents like you are screwed.
The way out of this is to support business growth. The more the country earns, the better off we’ll all be.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why the green shoots smell so funny.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/SoBUz1y4I_I/AAAAAAAAGnA/VlWq8I97c4U/s1600-h/excess+reserves.png
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, BP
The necessity is that the tax structure is perceived as FAIR. That the wealthy pay fairly, that the middle class pay fairly. That the impoverished do not get a completely free ride.
The necessity is that the social structure is perceived as fair as well. That the schools that a poor person’s child attends are just as able to teach that child properly and prepare them for university or life, as the schools that the wealthy person’s child attends.
Right now those necessities are violated by both the left AND the right, and pointing fingers simply indicates the number of wrongs without correcting anything.
BP suggested the Swedish form of vouchers based schooling. Possibly a good idea. I suggest the Swedish form of taxation which goes along with it. New Zealand might do well to just trash the entire parliament and send someone with a copybook to Stockholm.
Outsource the government. We’re obviously no good at it.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: Why don’t you, personally, and all your Green mates, volunteer to pay maximum tax rates? Where else is the money going to come from?
Gerrit said: The welfare system has to be miserable as there are noy enough tax payers. Keep harping on about this, but if you want to live within the budget, have a better welfare system and have plenty of tax payers.
I’ve had two tax cuts that I had no need for in the last year. I donated mine to the Green Party, but I would rather have not received it at all and seen discretion to assist through Special Benefit the most poorly off of out citizens reintroduced, the In work Tax Crefit extended to all families on a qualifying income rather than just those in work, and the Training Incentive Allowance reintroduced for DPB to undertake tertiary study to get them into sustainable employment and pay a decent whack of tax rather than jobs at Foodtown taht still require government subsidies for them to get by when they go off the benefit.
BP said: I’d come down a lot harder on the fathers.
I agree, but we wouln’t be very popular with d4j then.
I’d also restructure welfare along the lines of KiwiSaver mixed with personal insurance,
You may have a point here. I’m actually a fan of the scandinavian type of welfare system, but it needs to have a bottom line that meets the real needs of those who have never been able to work and therefore have never been able to contribute to an insurance based scheme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Rich does not necessarily equate with evil.”
Nobody said that. But there is only so much inequality a society can handle and still function – too much inequality causes resentment, apathy and disinterest, not to mention market failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
my comment was on the widening inequalities globally..since the reagan-revolution in america..and the roger ‘it’s my free-holiday..and i’ll go if i want to!’) douglas revolution here..
where the rich have got seriously/significantly richer..
the middle class have gone into debt..(in their faux-’we feel rich!’/put it on the house!’-world/group-delusion..
..and the poor have just stayed there..poor..
..there are just now more of them..
..and soon to be a sh*tload more..
for any balance to be regained..there will neeed to be a redistribution of that excess wealth at the top..
..this is a fact..
and i note that during the last depression..the top-tax rate rose to 79%..
..(to pay for reconstruction/relief..)
..that that top rate came in some three years into that depression..
..and we have just started this one..
..here..especially..we are in a false-war stage..
..(with ‘green-shooters’ running around squawking excitedly..)
..and i thought the most significant line in that story..
..and the strongest portend for what will happen again/here..
..is why that to rate was raised so high..
“..Again, it was economic necessity —
–combined with a growing working class insurgency —
– that determined the tax increase..”
mm!! ‘kay..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(psst Frog; WE are the Rich are’nt we?)
Kiwi’s have got it sweet dude
Denyers can visit india anytime….china aint goin anywhere – somalia neither
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>for any balance to be regained..there will neeed to be a redistribution of that excess wealth at the top….this is a fact..
You’re not redistributing my wealth. Fact.
Stay poor until you can figure out a way to be more useful to others. Until then, that gap is going to get wider.
Revolution? Ha! You’re sitting way too comfortably for that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
are you going to stare down historical sea-changes..?..are you b.p..?
(did’n't shakespeare write something about that..?)
good luck with that…!..eh..?
i am just looking back..to see what will happen again this time..
your way leads only to a fascist police-state..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>..Again, it was economic necessity
Garbage. They perpetrated the depression by taking money off those who knew how to grow the countries wealth.
You’re only going to get wealthier through investment in business that provides a trade surplus or makes activity more efficient. You can’t tax your way to prosperity – it is impossible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>i am just looking back..to see what will happen again this time..
I think you need to look back with your red-coloured spectacles removed.
Your sources are clearly one-sided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PS: Thatcher made Britain wealthy.
Fact.
And how did she do that?
It wasn’t by raising taxes, was it….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Who is gonna redistribute yr wealthy Pete (that isn’t already?)
Incidentally – are you wealthy?
Really Wealthy? – or another 10c Milllionaire?
Better Vote Green if you wanna hang on to all that Gelt, Merch’,Mugambo,
Feelthy Lucre?
Invite your 12 favourite Green friends up to Turoa for the weekend – change yer Life Petey – can’t pay for that sort of fun hey…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil,
The changes made by thatcher, regan, and douglas have been very good for the rich and not so good for the poor; true.
The aforementioned changes have been very good for those whom exert effort to advance in life for this has been made possible to a far greater extent. True.
The aforementioned changes have been very bad for those whom seek to profit from the work of others whilst exerting no effort themselves. True.
The aforementioned changes thus benefit those willing to endevour and disadvantage those not willing to do so. True.
The aforementioned changes benefit the rich and disadvantage the poor not because it favours the rich but because it favours those whom exert effort. Where the aformentioned changes exist and a accessable public education system (free or through loan), with provisions for the support of children, and a safty net for adults, exists, as it does here and in under thatcher (though in less than ideal manners which allow for bludgers), there is absolutly no reason to be poor other than a lack of effort and therefore a desire to remain poor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – and those who are only modestly well-off financially, because they devote the bulk of their time to enriching their communities and their families and themselves with riches other than monetary ones? Is their financial situation due to their ‘lack of effort’? Is there absolutely no reason to be poor other than their ‘lack of effort’?
Surely it’s a case of where you apply that effort and to what end you apply it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Yes, I should of said “lack of effort towards bettering ones financial situation”. I had assumed that, given the context, the meaning would be obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Invite your 12 favourite Green friends up to Turoa for the weekend – change yer Life Petey
And do what? Tussock watching?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
12 Green friends Blue? They’ll be kind and forgiving of you – share your many insecurities with them, then lie back and let them massage your bloated ego til it’s all soothed and back under your control.
It’ll be the weekend of your life!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
August 11th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
> PS: Thatcher made Britain wealthy.
> Fact.
Fiction, actually.
She made some people wealthy, by reducing their taxes.
Her policies were a reversal of the class warfare of her predecessor in the sense that they were class warfare in the other direction, and they were every bit as destructive to Britain’s manufacturing base as those of her immediate predecessors.
The financial sector boomed, and the oil industry boomed (though that was not thanks to her – it was thanks to OPEC raising prices to levels which made non-OPEC oil sources profitable). But the only manufacturing industry that didn’t go down the gurgler under Thatcher was the Arms industry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not so Sapient. I’m keenly aware that there are other forms of wealth and all should be considered when judging the things people do with their lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>kahikatea
Ever owned a British car? One not made by Germans.
The end of British manufacturing was a service to the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
August 11th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
>>kahikatea
> Ever owned a British car? One not made by Germans.
> The end of British manufacturing was a service to the world.
I’m too young. A combination of one-eyed unionists and one-eyed thatcherists destroyed the British car industry before I had a chance to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>It’ll be the weekend of your life!
Will there be hot naked chicks with drugs and booze?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Finally!
Common ground!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I’m too young
Lucky you. They were garbage.
I had a few when I was a youngster. You know where they put the distributor? At the front of the engine, low down. A lot of British cars had this “feature”. So, when it rained, the water sprayed up straight into the electrics.
Marvelous.
No socialist should ever be allowed to build a car.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Common ground!
We got there in the end
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ski you fool…blown a chance for a drive in the Roller
all in one afternoon too!
anyone want to meet some miserable billionaires?
Get in line there …ahoy!
Look if you really want to watch tussock Pete – I’m sure no one’d stop ya….free country eh?
Wealth is truly in the mind, and is not ever a number…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I prefer Davos, darling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“PS: Thatcher made Britain wealthy.
Fact. ”
Yeah? I lived there shortly after Thatcher’s time – miserable, scummy squalid place it was full of boarded up shops and squatted council flats. I’m sure there was wealth somewhere, but not in evidence for most.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Garbage. They perpetrated the depression by taking money off those who knew how to grow the countries wealth.
I am sure that you know better than this. It would be nice if YOU would correct it yourself.
______________________
British Motorcars.
I remember that if you bought a Lotus you would be a fool to leave off the net option. That would be the net under the car to catch the bits as they fell off.
Not that the Italians did a lot better. One needed to resort to pentagrams and dead chickens to get the electrics to work.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..Your sources are clearly one-sided..”
wot ‘sources’..?
i am citing a fact..
..income tax rose to 79% during the last depression..
..what makes you think this one will be any different..?
..of course the silver lining in this cloud..
..is that the economic imperatives to end prohibition..
..will become impossible for the government to ignore..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
key will also appreciate the sedating effect of legal pot..
..high/chilled-out poor people aren’t likely to b anywhere as antsy as straight/uptight ones..
that imperative will also become impossible to ignore..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dunno BP, the SAAB wasn’t exactly the product of a pure capitalist system. Not to mention that they also make some nice combat aircraft and heavy trucks. Having driven one (of the cars) in some rallies I didn’t find it to be anything but a pleasure. Best damned car I ever owned.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I never questioned the politics of my Bonney, but it was as sweet as honey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
It is true that there exist many forms of wealth. However, in this context, talking about economic poverty, it should be clear that it is the economic status of the individual to which reference is made. The aquisition by the individual of wealth in other forms is of little relivance to the aforementioned topic other than the health effects of said wealth. It is not the purpose of the state to pay an individual a, more than, living wage so that they may pursue other forms of wealth. The state is tasked only with ensuring that pursuit is possible; more specifically the state is to ensure that the individual is sufficently supported that they are able to aquire employment and then fund their own pursuit of that wealth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
who is Davo, and how much does he cost?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Way too much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
To the rather simplistic views of what the Thatcher administration did for the UK. It is more that Thatcher set free the services sector to thrive, which it has, not only finance (which had it not been for Thatcher would have Zurich or Frankfurt instead of London as the European financial capital), but related business services of accounting, law, human resources, property management, management consulting, insurance and the like. It also allowed the telecommunications (Vodafone for example), public relations, entertainment, fashion and media sectors to thrive, as well as transport service providers (the major UK bus and rail companies have presences worldwide).
Without the extensive liberalisation of many sectors, the UK would have lumbered along with sunset industries it could never hope to be competitive in. Manufacturing was largely stymied by aggressive far leftwing unions who forever extracted concessions while demonstrating a shockingly poor work ethic, whilst the tax cuts Thatcher introduced increased revenue because the incentives to evade when income tax was at effectively a 98% marginal rate were enormous.
British manufacturing still exists, it just happens to be high end componentry for aircraft engines, and a high tech sector which has generally thrived. Far safer and better paying than the “down the mine” or menial production line jobs that were glorified in the past. Without Thatcher, the British economy would be akin to Italy, without the climate, well dressed people, good food and wine and culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great!!! Blue Peter has read Karl Marx!!!! There is hope for him yet!!
Tell me BP what did you think of the third chapter I think it was called “the working Day”?
Not to be confused with Charles Dickens
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – the opening statement was:
Thatcher made Britain wealthy.
and while it seems patently obvious that it was monetary wealth that was being discussed, I wanted to make the point that that was too narrow a focus for the discussion to be of much interest (to me).
I don’t disagree with the various points you made. In fact they are mostly straightfoward and a given.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right the Telethon band wagon: I am lucky that I don’t have a TV.
Right orientated politicians and local councilors badly want to be seen to be giving to charity- – - usually schools. They raise money for things that the school schould have as of right.
Sometimes the methodology is very suspect: In April our village of Lake Coleridge had a fundraiser for the nearest school (in the next district) and they had permission from the Selwyn District Council to block the road at each end of the village.
Visitors had no option but to use the two padocks before the village at a very hefty fee. The locals were told to avoid useing the road during during the day.
Isn’t this the methodology of Ned Kelly? Is this even legal? We know that it was downright unethical.
Yet it was sanctioned by the SDC, one of the ex-mayors visited, our local MP visited, other councillors and dignatories visited. I couldn’t find a bucket. I know how Frog felt. It is really greasy!!!
I challenged that school to help out the kids in Palestine especially the Gaza Strip!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It is more that Thatcher set free the services sector to thrive… s well as transport service providers ”
Certainly did – pity the poor British have to put up with the lousy services they provide, while the companies thrive by paying lousy wages and living off monopolistic government contracts.
“high end componentry for aircraft engines,”
Made by Rolls-Royce for example – bailed out by the taxpayer when it nearly went bankrupt, then privatised and do rather nicely out of government defence contracts and building engines for government-subsidised Airbus aircraft.
“entertainment, fashion… sectors to thrive,”
The Economist had a good article about this sector – saying it worked by attracting youthful overseas talent who were in London because of the party scene, which existed largely due to the widespread availability of cheap drugs. Certainly there wasn’t much other attraction to London- it was rapidly losing its British population last I lived there as wages barely covered rents and transport.
Dunno where all this supposed wealth was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)