Gateway to….
Appalling employment practices, apparently.
The lockout at the Gateway Hotel in Mangere is entering it’s fourth week.
The new owner isn’t doing himself any favours by acting like a cowboy - since taking over last November he has sacked a waitress for being pregnant, is under investigation by the Labour Department for paying some staff less than minimum wage, and is now trying to break a dozen staff, who were locked out on the 3rd of August following legal strike action.
The union busting activity has continued, with Police being called every day of the lock out, staff issued with trespass notices, illegal scab labour being brought in and threats to ‘restructure’ and contract out all the locked out workers jobs.
The picket is continuing from 10 am to 6pm every day at 206 Kirkbride Road, Mangere. The support from passing motorists is evident, and the union community is rallying around as usual (e.g. Unite spoke at the Seafarers’ delegates meeting this morning, and came away with a $500 donation).
The workers are determined to “stay out one day longer than the boss”, public support is the way to help them do this, as we saw with the Progressive and Spotless lockouts.
For more information, contact Unite Organiser Daphna Whitmore at 09 8452 132
August 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Why is this on a Green blog?
August 27th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Here we go again. Stick to your knitting greens or slip below the 5%. Actually, no keep claptrapping far left greens - that will get rid of the rediculous “gruesome suesome twosome”.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Is this the Alliance party web site as well now?
August 28th, 2007 at 7:39 am
There is a wide perception that there is a dominant group of Marxists in the Green Party. Green = sustainable economy, Values (community, urban environment, greater environment etc)
August 28th, 2007 at 7:46 am
The news footage of the idiot union leader eyeballing the police wasn’t a good look during the Progressive dispute.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Still going to deny the hidden agenda Russ?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Expect the disingenuous “What Being Green Means” line to be trotted out shortly, BB….
August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
PEL says: Expect the disingenuous “What Being Green Means� line to be trotted out shortly, BB…
Well, doesn’t matter what I say here (and have said before about Green Charter principles), I suppose I’ll be accused of being disingenuous.
So I’ll just say that the Greens stand for fairness and justice, and here is an example of an employer treating its staff appallingly. Of course the Greens will back workers, most of whom are on the minimum wage, who have been locked out by an employer who is trying to prevent them from organising collectively. And back them openly and proudly - no hidden agenda here, BB, it’s all up front - read the Industrial Relations policy.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
The thing is Toad. when does this Green Charter Principle apply and when does it not. For example the Greens are against smacking due to their principle of Non Violence, etc, etc. Our whole legal system is built around deciding justice (I think??), it isn’t just up to the opinion of the Greens as to wot is just and wot isn’t. The only clear Green Principle is #1 and that is that environmental sustainability is paramount. It could be that the workers are being screwed but it is often the case that people with a political agenda are pushing (stirring or at least exploiting). Older NZ’rs remember the militant unions of the past.
Remember the German Greens, they have cast off Kieth, Sue, Toad and co and are in a strong position to get the public behind true Green issues
jh
August 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
“Social Justice” is one of the four charter principles of the Green Party.
http://greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
I.E., Porcupine, this is Green Party knitting.
Big Bro: You might find you need glasses. This is not a hidden agenda.
JH: Screwing workers clearly violates “social justice”.
JH: Any evidence that this is being pushed by a political agenda? Occam’s razor suggests it is an industrial dispute.
PEL: “What Being Green Means�. WTF is that disingenuous?
Sigh!
W
August 28th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Bliss,
You are trying to destroy their pre-conceptions…good luck.
It is rather amazing the people who comment on this blog who have such a limited notion of what the Green party stands for. They seem to think that one can be environmently-friendly without changing the social organization that informs our interactions with the environment.
I notice too, none of those posters actually addressed the issue that Frog was actually posting about.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I bet the usual troll kneejerk rabid rightwing suspects here would complain bitterly if unfair employment practices were handed out to them at their workplaces. Shame on you all for not being supportive when other people are treated unfairly.
To focus on just one point however, JH says that the Greens shouldn’t be interested in this issue because it is not Green, but he then defines Green as being about community values. Quite right, being Green IS about community values, and how people are treated in their workplaces IS a community value.
It is quite right and proper that the Greens have a wider policy base encompassing all aspects of government. If we truly did only focus on environmental issues all you wreckers-and-haters™ would instead be slagging us off for being a single issue party. Just admit it, you have no interest in constructive discussions to make the world a better place, you are only interested in destroying the Green Party.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
>>WTF is that disingenuous?
Because all the red terminology dare not speak its name in 2007.
Wonder what they’ll call it next….
August 28th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
PEL
>>WTF is that disingenuous?
Because all the red terminology dare not speak its name in 2007.
Wonder what they’ll call it next…
You speak in riddles.
What a waste of time!
W
August 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Stuey - and shame on you for not supporting bosses who have workers steal from them. I don’t think we’ll ever see such a story on FrogBlog, because we’re all clear “being Green” means being both vague and selective.
What does social justice actually mean, anyway? Is it just I’m told how to raise my children by zealots who have ignored study after study that proves them wrong? Is it just I’m having a boatload of tax taken off me and given, against my will, to child abusers and the system that perpetuates their very existence?
I could go on…
August 28th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
>>You speak in riddles
Green is the mask of the far-left/communist/socialist political collective. Nice warm fuzzies about nature and cartoon animals on the outside….
August 28th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Of course the Greens will back workers” Period, whether they are right or wrong. And as for Kedgley’s patheticism on TV last night!
Greens - are we going to be a clean lean green first world economy or a 3rd world pack of basket weaving cat homeopathists, who could afford conservation and a green environment if it was in the cut price bin at pack ‘n save? - You choose.
Ooorrrhh nah! On second thoughts, we’ll chose - the bluegreens are the truegreens because their economy will be able to afford it. Wakey wakey.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
far-left/communist/socialist political collective
And you know this how?
cartoon animals on the outside
I like cartoon animals. I have been a member of the GP for 7 years. Why have I not been informed?
I am shocked and appalled!
W
August 28th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
>>And you know this how?
I don’t now why people would even bother pretending otherwise.
I’m all for a nice environment. Who isn’t? I just don’t see why it needs to come bundled with totalitarian socialist nonsense.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
PEL
You err if you think I am not on the side of the workers… and I do not have warm fuzzy thoughts or cartoon animals on my desk. Nor do I wear any masks. This is your projection of something that simply is not so.
The Green Party has always stood for and by these principles. It is and has always been, the part of abusers of capitalism to avoid fairness in treating with their fellow humans in commerce and in life. We have not hidden our position.
You may wish to avoid the coupling of ecological wisdom and justice with the social justice agendas, but these things are impossible to separate. You cannot exercise one without accepting the other.
“Treat all men alike. Give them the same law. Give them an even chance to live and grow.” - Chief Joseph
respectfully
BJ
August 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
JH said: Older NZ’rs remember the militant unions of the past.
And remember them with some affection too, JH, although that was somewhat before my time. Do you really think the reason we have labour laws and minimum standards in workplaces today is because employers have become nicer or because Governments became magnanimous? No, it is because unions were militant and threatened the profits of employers if they didn’t give their workers fair wages and conditions.
That is until compulsory unionism / unqualified preference made the unions lazy because they collected their union fees whether they delivered any gains to their workers or not. In case you haven’t noticed, the days of unqualified preference have long since passed.
What we have now is some militant bosses intent on maximising profits at the workers’ expense, and from what I’ve read, Gateway appears to be one of them. Good on the union for sticking up for its members and trying to rail in a militant employer.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Question: Who supports the boss’ ability to pay below minimum wage, fire pregnant workers?
August 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Not me.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Luke, Don Brash is on record as advocating scrapping the minimum wage altogether.
That is the position of the extreme right, and I suspect contributers here such as PEL, JH & BB do tacitly support paying workers below the minimum wage because they don’t believe there should be a minimum wage.
August 28th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Toad
I suspect it is wrong to lump them together. Each of the three is different and has a different reason for coming here to be abused.
respectfully
BJ
August 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Point taken, BJ. At least as far as other issues go. JH strikes me as having somewhat more environmental awareness than the other two, and BB is certainly much more authoritarian then PEL or JH.
But get them onto industrial relations and they seem to me like peas in a pod.
BTW, what’s happened to Mouldwarp?
August 28th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Toad
“That is the position of the extreme right, and I suspect contributers here such as PEL, JH & BB do tacitly support paying workers below the minimum wage because they don’t believe there should be a minimum wage”
How easy it is for the left to label all those who appose it!
You have no idea what my stance is on the minimum wage and sadly like most socialists when you don’t know you just make it up.
I find it a little irritating that the Greens pretend that they will consider being part of the next national led govt when in reality we all know that you will never go with Key, I guess what I am saying is that you do yourself no favours with all this militant union rubbish.
NZers have not forgotten the communist led unions of the 70’s & 80’s, if you are to young to remember what that is like take a walk down Lambton Quay and have a look at the BNZ building, that building was held up for years because of militant communist union behaviour, the people who were supposed to be looking after the workers actually stopped them working on that sight at at time of near record unemployment, simply put they did not give a toss about the workers.
What the voters in NZ want from the Greens IMHO is the truth, they do not want wishy washy statements or feel good documents they want to know what your bottom line is.
I have already told you how you can secure my votes (both of them) yet you choose to ignore this, last night on 20/20 there was a piece about Beagles being bred for experiments, this is the type of issue you should be posting about not some union led nonsense.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Toad
I will lay my cards on the table, i detest unions as I believe that each and every worker should have the right to negotiate with his or her employer.
In the early 80’s I left school, I needed a job and knocked on doors until I found one.
I was lucky enough to obtain an apprenticeship and worked for a fantastic man (total socialist as it happens) anyway after about nine months a chap came into the shop one day while we were having smoko, he introduced himself as the local union rep and wanted to know why I had not joined the union.
I replied that I did not want to or need to as my boss was a great guy and I had no employment issues, at this he walked up right into my face and said ” I don’t give e f**k what you want” while poking his finger into my chest, ” you will join the union and that is that”
Eventually he was asked to leave the shop only to return with another of his “comrades” who told me in no uncertain terms that I did not have the option, union membership was compulsory.
I have hated them ever since.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I want to hear about these union issues.
Like the militant boss that is sick of a worker complaining says: “If you don’t like it, you know where the gate is”, maybe those that don’t like seeing union issues could go somewhere else?
To suggest the Greens don’t blog about union issues is just selfish.
August 28th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Shane
Would you deny the boss the right to say that to his worker?
August 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
It seems BB has just discovered irony and satire:
“How easy it is for the left to label all those who appose it! You have no idea what my stance is on the minimum wage and sadly like most socialists when you don’t know you just make it up.”
OMG! WTF! I can’t believe you have the cheek to lecture someone for putting words into your mouth when just about every second post you make puts words into our mouths.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
BB, the answer to that question is not absolute.
In some circumstances, if the worker’s concerns are reasonable and the bosses comments are taken as an invitation to resign, that behaviour by an employer can amount to constructive dismissal. For example, if the employee is complaining about unsafe working conditions or about being refused a day in lieu for working a statutory holiday. In those circumstances, the law currently denies the boss the right to say that, and I believe rightly so.
As for the labeling, BB, just giving you a bit of your own back. You feel you have the right to spout all this “far left” / “communist” / “watermelon” stuff about the Greens, then surely you must expect to take a little back. I could have used the words “Nazi” or “fascist” if I’d wanted to getinto the sort of labeling you do, but I didn’t. I think “extreme right” is a fairly moderate and accurate description of the position you have taken here.
Anyway, what is your position on the minimum wage? I didn’t claim I knew it and I didn’t make it up - just said what I suspected it was.
BTW, agree with you completely re the animal experimentation item on 20/20 last night - and the Greens do take animal welfare issues seriously - as in today’s blog re whaling.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
big bro said: Would you deny the boss the right to say that to his worker?
No I wouldn’t, a boss can say and do what they like, as long as they are prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.
August 28th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
PEL: “Stuey - and shame on you for not supporting bosses who have workers steal from them.” and you are referring to what exactly? I was referring to your reaction to a frog post, you are referring to?? It’s certainly not the Gateway case that frog has posted about because those workers were sacked for trying to unionise, there is no suggestion of anything else.
BB, yes I agree it is unfair to be forced to unionise. But the opposite is true as well - it is unfair to prevent people who would like to unionise from doing so, (which is what this Gateway case is about) don’t you agree?
August 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
bliss Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 11:42 am
JH: Any evidence that this is being pushed by a political agenda? Occam’s razor suggests it is an industrial dispute.
No I don’t have any evidence, but the Greens are a left-wing dominated party aren’t they?
jh
August 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
JH said No I don’t have any evidence, but the Greens are a left-wing dominated party aren’t they?
No, JH, they are not. There are some left-wingers (I tend that way) and some right-wingers, and lots of people somewhere in between. But it is also about sustainability v environmental exploitation, and authoritarianism v libertarianism.
Greens are into looking to a future that has some hope for our descendents 500 years or 2000 years down the track. Stuff the planet, and all is lost. I’m just one who happens to think that a libertarian socialist perspective is the best way of keeping the planet viable for those who inherit it from us.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Toad
If you had just left out this line ” a libertarian socialist perspective is the best way” then a lot more people would vote for you.
That is what is keeping the Greens dangerously near the 5% threshold, most Kiwi’s are concerned about the future but we also have to live in the present.
There are many of us who you are alienating by that stance, while we have Greens sympathies we have also had a gutslfull of political correctness, special treatment for Maori and being raped by this corrupt govt on a weekly basis.
Sticking to Green issues will get you at least 8-9% in the next election, this socialist / communist (you cannot deny that you have committed communists in the party) will possibly see you miss out on any seats in the house, you man not believe me but I would never want to see that happen.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I am amazed that people think that environmentalism can exist beside free for all capitalism. History has consistently shown that given a choice between profits and preserving the environment some bodies (corporations/people) choose the money. Then since they are making more money than those that choose the environment these bodies dominant and cause more havoc.
But wait a second I see some similarities with employment relations here…
August 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Luke
Actually I reckon that it CAN exist next to free for all capitalism if some method is found to put real pricing on the use of and destruction of the commons, the air, the water, the soil… and all the rest. That such a costing would destroy most current business models and force people to think and do things very differently is one of the reasons why it is never acceptable to the right wing, which is dominated by business interests.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if the green party is labeled a bit left of center, and libertarian-socialist in perspective the right must wear its own colours proudly.
respectfully
BJ
August 28th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
But as I see it everyone puts a different value on clean air, clear water, biodiversity, healthy environments. And that puts a bit of a spanner in the works doesn’t it??
August 28th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
BJ
Not everybody from the right is politically motivated by business interests, I sure as hell aren’t.
What I am motivated by is personal freedom, personal responsibility, one rule for all, the end to the welfare state (as we currently know it) and lower taxes.
Luke.
So socialism or communism is better for the environment is it?
August 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Luke, history has shown that when people own land, they look after it. Contrast this fact with the environmental protection record of communist nations - China and the ex-Soviet Union, for example.
Our tourism trade demands a beautiful environment. I’m happy to pay for our environment to stay that way. I’m very interested in new technology, particularly in relation to cars and energy. I’m a proud right wing capitalist.
I’m suspicious of what I perceive to be an anti-capitalist agenda.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
“and you are referring to what exactly”
A hypothetical worker-screws-boss story. I doubt such a story would be a lead story on FrogBlog, because “social justice” doesn’t appear to cut both ways….
August 28th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
stuey Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Just admit it, you have no interest in constructive discussions to make the world a better place, you are only interested in destroying the Green Party.
……..
The German Greens saw the light.
We could start with what we agree on, (the need for ecological sustainability), and keep a more open and step by step approach to everything else. That maybe a single issue but it has a lot of tentacles> consumerism, urban design, and social change. The left are assuming, (trying to jump the gun) re what is the best society and solutions for the future.
I did have a knee jerk reaction to this post (”here we go again”), which may have been unjustified, [it doesn’t seem very impartial…”scab labour?????”]
I was thinking back to the progressive dispute which seemed to be an attack on the employment contracts act, which to me seemed fair in so far as workers in some centers have higher costs than those in others..
jh
August 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
PeterExitsLeft Says:
August 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
One of the property investors main rules is “never get sentimental about your property”
Mass tourism means that in oder to consume the scenery, we provide roads, buildings etc, and eventually destroy it (Queenstown) [sort of]
http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/76571-ebook.htm
jh
August 28th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
BB: “So socialism or communism is better for the environment is it?”
No, absolutely not, look at the appalling environmental record of soviet union and eastern europe for example. Or china’s abuses of nature.
Socialist or communist leads to big polluting centralist think big disasters.
That’s why the greens are neither left nor right but out in front.
And that’s why us Greens are so offended when you call us communist, we truly believe we cannot be placed on a left-right axis, we take on some parts of traditionally left thinking and absolutely do not take on other parts. Similarly we take on board some parts of traditional right thinking and not others.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
jh, thanks for your helpful and conciliatory post. I agree that the original frog post isn’t very impartial and is could even be seen as rather inflamatory, but then it is trying to raise awareness and encourage support.
But I must question your reference to the German Greens. You seem to imply that they have purged left-wingers and dumped some left wing policy? But I don’t know to what you can possibly be referring. The wikipedia article says nothing. Got any refs?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Luke - There was a reason I used the phrase “if some method is found” in there.
It usually is used as a construction that implies that there is no known or theoretically practical method to accomplish whatever it was…. and only a dummy would attempt it… at least that’s how we use it back in New Yawk.
respectfully
BJ
August 28th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
i think the best defination of the greens would involve them being Eclective, the greens choose what policies they beleive to best ensure that the human species and other species will continue to survive to the best possible standards.
as i see it the political spectrum has three axis’ left/right, libertarian/authoritarian and eco-friendly/stuff-the-future. although some ideologies may have a tendancy to affect the others i dont think any will by neccessity alter another. having said that i am an lefty and i think that state regulation, etc is a neccessity to ensure individuals dont destroy the futures of others for their own short term gain (cough, cough, the canterbury plains) and that class mobility is a good thing, with provisions such as affordable education and provision of basic subsidence central to class mobility. as i see it benefits are not for letting someone sit on their arse, they should be for enabling their offspring to climb the ladder, another pointless rant, but hey, long time no ranting, good to be back, my next post may even have sentance structure…
on another note, why is Key, whom is from such a humble background, and yet who now has about 40 mil, a national party member. supporting the very measures which would cut down the class mobility that got him where he is?
August 29th, 2007 at 12:30 am
BB - Face facts… you are a 3 sigma outlier here. You can’t possibly be motivated by the same things most of the right is motivated by, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. In some ways it makes you easier to tolerate.
The business critters, they are just too eager to buy and sell anything they have, and their souls were auctioned off early in the game. Fetched only a small sum I am afraid… very poor quality. They are however, running a hell of a lot of the right wing agenda… and barring a miracle they are going to be forming government in about a year.
You however, ain’t sold out. I may call you other things on occasion, but never that.
Unions and unionists can be as pushy as bad bosses. It isn’t something that is writ large in my experiences. Engineers are not generally organized into unions. Some might argue that our problem is that we’d do the work even if we weren’t paid and that’s near enough the truth.
So I can’t identify with your experience. The counterweight I apply is not related to unions at all, but to the abuse of labour… which IS common enough in engineering because we DO want to do the work and finish the job correctly come hell or high-water.
++++ warning— long++++
One day a lawyer a doctor and an engineer appeared before St Peter as he was guarding the pearly gates.
The first to step forward was the lawyer and with after an eloquent presentation that left the good Saint somewhat dazed he thrust a writ of mandamus into his hands and pushed through the gates of heaven.
The second was the Doctor, who with dignified bearing introduced himself, and St Peter said cordially “I feel I know you Dr,, Many who preceded you said you sent them here. Please enter”
The Engineer, modest and diffident in the background, then stepped forward “I’m looking for a job” he said. St Peter wearily shook his head. “I am sorry” he replied, “we have no work for you. If you want a job, you can go to hell”.
This response sounded familiar to the Engineer and made him feel more at home. “Very well” he said, “I have had hell all my life so I guess I can stand it better than the others”. Now St. Peter was puzzled. “I am afraid I don’t understand” he said, “just what is it that you do?”
Recalling a definition the Engineer replied with confidence “I apply mathematical principles to the control of natural forces” . This seemed meaningless to St Peter and his temper got the better of him. “Sir” he said, “You can go to hell with your mathematical principles and try your hand on some of the natural forces there”. “That suits me” replied the engineer. “I am always glad to go where there is a tough job to tackle.” Whereupon he departed for the nether regions.
…and it came to pass that strange news began to drift up to St Peter. The denizens of heaven, who had in the past looked down with scorn on the citizens of hell, were now applying for transfer to that domain. Many new arrivals, after seeing both places, were choosing to make hell their permanent abode.
Puzzled, St Peter sent messengers down to visit and report back to him. They returned, all excited and said “That Engineer you sent down to hell has completely transformed the place so that you would not know it. He has harnessed the fiery furnaces for power and light. He has used the power to provide artificial refrigeration, drained the lakes of brimstone and filled the are with perfumed breezes. He has flung bridges across the bottomless abyss and bored through the obsidian cliffs. He created paved streets, gardens, patios, playgrounds, lakes, rivers and beautiful waterfalls. That Engineer you sent there has gone through hell and made it a realm of happiness, peace and industry”
++++++++++++++
Which isn’t exactly Green, but it sums up Engineers pretty well. We work to make things better any way we can think of…. We don’t generally consider the pay as rewarding as the puzzle.
Which is something that employers of Engineers are prone to abuse.
Now there are some as might argue that doing that to hell spoiled the natural beauty of hell. Me… I’m an Engineer. I measure things the way DaVinci did, in human terms. I take a longer view than some…. we can’t live alone, we have to support the whole of the natural ecology to survive… but it is not my religion except in the sense that I would rather worship trees than someone elses deity.
How does this make me a Liberal I am not sure, except that you can’t lie to natural forces and they keep you in a state of humility. We are not so powerful as to gather massive wealth by the sweat of our own brow, we know that “nuthins for nuthin” and so engineers tend to be very VERY keen at perceiving where the hidden inputs are in every transaction with the world. We tend to be honest cause you cannot cheat reality, the laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics.
So when I see great imbalances in wealth I don’t naturally assume that it was earned. Really large imbalances are necessarily a symptom of imbalance (injustice) somewhere in the system. I don’t even have to know where. I believe that this is how an engineer finds the Liberal viewpoint… or maybe it is only me.
Anyhow… that’s my story and I am sticking to it.
respectfully
BJ
August 29th, 2007 at 6:39 am
BJ,
As a fellow engineer I enjoyed your post, right on the button. Nothing gives greater pleasure then creating, fixing and improving all manner of things (except perhaps sailing and fishing).
Especially when the grandchildren bring you their treasured possesions to be mended.
We have some greedy employers/owners of business (like this guy at the Gateway may be - we havent heard his side of the story) on the other short focus unions (no more steel skeleton high rises were build after the BB refered to BNZ fiasco in Wellington - boilermakers were the long term losers for a short term gain).
Both should be hauled before the court of public opinion. However when I read the blog post I was instantly reminded of Alliance party rheteric.
Hence my comment.
Must say that the compulsory union days were bad. Seaman manning the Cook Staright ferries seemingly always on strike Christmas holiday’s, meat workers on strike start of the lambing season, etc.
Cant ever see a return to compulsory unionism. Even the unions dont seem to want it - eight years of support for “their” party on the decision making side of the house and no legislation to return to compulsion.
Am with BB on this, “What I am motivated by is personal freedom, personal responsibility, one rule for all, the end to the welfare state (as we currently know it) and lower taxes.”
Perhaps were would be better of the discuss how to “engineer” the welfare state away from dependency and towards personal independance.
My concern is that the ratio of tax payers to tax recipients is now so close to being unsustainable that the whole system is about to collapse and we will be faced with another 1980’s style correction. Only Cullens over taxation and massive surplusses are postponing the crumbling of this house of cards.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:32 am
I think the cat provides a good analogy. The cat is fed every day, but doesn’t give a thought to where its cat food comes from or how it is financed. The same applies to welfare (and oil supplies). A lot of people are making choices based on thinking like the cats.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:35 am
“The death of idealism
Joschka Fischer — who used to throw rocks and wear tennis shoes — has come a long way in his political evolution. He’s taken his party with him.
Over the years, the Greens have sacrificed almost all of their sacred cows to the political process. Critics insist they have sold their environmentally-friendly souls for power and have lost their idealism. To this, there is but one truthful retort: Thank God. Their platforms from the 1980s read like a catalog of idiocies. Among other things, they wanted Germany to withdraw from NATO, raise gas prices as high as 5 marks a liter, and to legalize hash and other drugs. For years, the media lashed out at the Greens, poking fun at their tree-hugging ways and begging them to grow up. Now, they have. Today, the former pacifists support armed military missions abroad — Kosovo and Afghanistan are the clearest examples. They also indirectly have supported the war on terror by green-lighting the deployment of Germans to patrol the Horn of Africa. They were even willing to make a compromise on nuclear energy, pushing back a deadline for when the last German reactor would be shut down.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,336623,00.html
August 29th, 2007 at 9:44 am
jh
“One of the property investors main rules is “never get sentimental about your propertyâ€?”
Is it really? I certainly get sentimental about my properties, and I look after them. I own a *lot* of trees, even though the government doesn’t seem to want me to, simply because I enjoy looking at them.
>>we provide roads, buildings etc, and eventually destroy it (Queenstown)
It’s has not been “destroyed”. I like Queenstown - great mix of natural beauty and nice restaurants.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Once you’ve made it I’m sure you can afford to be sentimental, especially if you own a few properties. I have heard that quote from more than one source however and I believe it is true. Investors and developers take shortcuts, sacrifice a site to put a new house next to an old house when there is no way they would want to live in either themselves. The main objective is profit not good urban design.
Whether or not you like Queenstown depends on what you choose to see, I think. The question is what is driving growth? Personally I think it is a lemming thing. Queenstown was better 25 years ago but you couldn’t sell a house (I’m told)
jh
August 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Sure, but not all developers take that attitude. The fly-by-nighters certainly seem to.
If a developer misreads the market for an area and listens too much to her accountant, rather than her marketing/sales advisor, she may get burned.
I have a rule: I never buy somewhere I’m not prepared to live myself, reasoning that desire, rather than function, is a major motivator, particularly at the high end of the market. Cutting corners here is a sure-fire way to kill your profit.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
I think the only ones who have choice in the property market are those at the top. People at the bottom (the majority) have to take what they can get (more or less).
I think the state needs to take an enlightened firmer hand over the nations housing. In other words there needs to be a bigger hand guiding the smaller hands. Housing (urban design) is a special market case, it seems to me.
From The Press:
“City developer aims high. Property millionaire, developer and realtor
Steve Brooks is building homes to sell all over Christchurch. And he’s just turned 20.
LIZ McDONALD meets the young achiever.
[snip]
In the same way he tackles life, Brooks is not doing the development business by halves. He has four units almost finished in Yaldhurst, “10 or
2″ going in next door, eight planned on two sites in Linwood and Woolston, and several more on the drawing board for neighbourhoods
including Woolston and Sockburn.
“I’m hoping to get about 25 houses out in the next 12 months.
“I would love to go out and find a section to build 50 homes. Within
three years I would love to pump out 300 homes.”
Brooks’ first complex is four pensioner units is under construction
on Buchanans Road in Yaldhurst, right next to the 28-hectare Masham
block where a major subdivision is going in.”
August 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Gee Thanks Young Master (Wise One)
jh
August 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I’ve yet to meet a buyer at the top choose down-market. Their choice is still limited by availability, but I take your point. The poor have less choice, in all things.
I think we could certainly do urban planning a lot better than we do now. I wonder how kiwis would go with, say, UK style terraced housing? I note more and more of it popping up, and in upmarket areas, too.
That’s obviously happening without regulation. The main driver being land scarcity.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
What is “terraced” housing. I know what a terrace is. I don’t understand it applied to housing. Is there a picture of this somewhere?
BJ
August 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Never mind… I just found it on the wiki… row-houses.
Thanks
BJ
August 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
We sort of associate that with Coronation Street (negatively), but it may have been ok after all the drama itself is about street life. I would like a terraced house with a balcony (other things being equal i.e. sun etc). I’d like to drink coffee and chat to the neighbors.
jh
August 29th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I lived in them whilst in the UK. They’re charming, but too small. You can also hear the neighbors through the party wall (and above or below), which may lead to community, or may lead to violence, depending on the quality of your neighbor. Then there’s the squabbles over shared area maintenance etc. Still, apartment living is much the same deal.
Personally, I prefer a standalone house.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
So basically the only issues are the quality of the walls and the size of the place. We have them in parts of the US too. My Grandparents lived in one which I recall quite well. There was actually no “common” area for maintenance. The front and back yards were small, but yours. Garage underneath.
The soundproofing of walls has become a bit more scientific since the 30’s and that would give some relief. The advantage is in terms of heating and cooling…. less of each is required to maintain temperatures and slightly, land use. The major disadvantage is that if the guy 3 houses down from you has a fire, so do you.
I think most of us like standalones, but there is much to be said for a good sized inner-city apartment, as there are more entertainments in the city and less transport expenses to reach them. I’d put the row-house or terrace-house somewhere in the least desireable solution region. It doesn’t actually seem to solve many problems at all.
respectfully
BJ
August 29th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
So when people advocate medium density housing on this board, what (exactly) are they talking about?
I always think apartments, semi-detached townhouses or terraces, but perhaps I’m mistaken.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
PEL
I would favor apartment blocks with enclosed courtyards personally, but with the apartments large enough and storage space ample to actually support being able to live in the damned things. Four stories without needing elevators, reduced heating requirements to the single houses, privacy and a decent outdoor balcony for all the people living in them. Not really hard to do. Not sure I like row houses, the apartments make for a smaller footprint and you can put green space/park area with trees in between.
Must have trees.
Turns out that if you have trees things calm down. I’d have to find the study, but people seem to find it astonishingly relaxing to have trees around them… violence and anxiety is diminished. Maybe its related with having someplace to climb to safety when you see a lion… it seems to be that deep in the lizard brain.
But I’d have to find the study I read that showed the result.
Anyhow, that’s where I would go with it. I wouldn’t want to have to have elevators, younger folk can live on the upper floors. A mix with all different sizes of apartments on each courtyard.
respectfully
BJ
August 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
not just violence and anxiety - there have also been studies of rates of recovery in hospitals that showed that people recovered quicker from illness if they were in a hospital with trees outside the window.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Agree about the trees. Can never have too many trees as far as I’m concerned - perhaps I’m a ‘hugger after all.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Found this in Wkipaedia
“According to Duany and Plater-Zyberk, the heart of New Urbanism is in the design of neighborhoods, which can be defined by thirteen elements:
1. The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center.
2. Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly 2,000 feet.
3. There are a variety of dwelling types — usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments — so that younger and older people, singles, and families, the poor, and the wealthy may find places to live.
4. At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.
5. A small ancillary building or garage apartment is permitted within the backyard of each house. It may be used as a rental unit or place to work (for example, an office or craft workshop).
6. An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home.
7. There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling — not more than a tenth of a mile away.
8. Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination.
9. The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles.
10. Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a well-defined outdoor room.
11. Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys.
12. Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities.
13. The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association debates and decides matters of maintenance, security, and physical change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community.”
August 29th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Sounds good to me. Ever been to Delft?
August 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
No, I’ve never been to Europe.
August 30th, 2007 at 1:06 am
bj,
To see some examples (good and bad) of British high density housing check out the booklet “Compact Sustainable Communities” from:
http://www.cpre.org.uk/library/results/housing-and-urban-policy
‘It is a common misunderstanding that higher housing densities need to result in lower standards of space around and within the home. While large detached houses will tend to be more spacious than town centre apartments, the case studies suggest that it is possible to provide generous living space and, at the same time, achieve higher development densities.’
The Campaign to Protect Rural England exists to promote the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England by encouraging the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country.
August 30th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Frog
This is the type of cause I want the Greens to take up, this is the type of thing that would make me vote for you.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4183183a11.html
August 30th, 2007 at 6:48 am
And fight against rubbish like this
Sacrifice to river taniwha helped - builders
By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Sacrifices to “grumpy river gods” helped building specialists as they battled the elements creating the new Waiohine Gorge suspension bridge, near Carterton.
It took a team of eight from Wellington-based Abseil Access two months to build the $100,000, 92-metre-long suspension footbridge, which spans the gorge in eastern Tararua Forest Park.
The bridge, which officially opened on Friday, was not without its problems during the construction phase.
Abseil Access managing director Martin Wilson said that aside from frustrations with cold, wet weather, the engineering team had to tackle “taniwha issues”.
“The two towers needed to square on to each other and be exactly the right distance apart, but we just couldn’t get the measurements across the 35-metre-deep gorge right.”
The team, desperate to make things right, tried throwing some tools into the river as a sacrifice to the Waiohine taniwha.
“That didn’t seem to do the trick, so eventually we had to go rafting in the river to solve some of the problems.
“Once the river gods knew what we were up to, things came right.”
Carterton Mayor Gary McPhee, who confessed to “almost losing the plot” while trying to negotiate his way across the river over the old bridge in the 1980s, was the first to cross the new.
“Back then, it took me 10 minutes to get across 60 metres and even my sons could see that Dad was scared. This makes such a difference.”
The bridge is one of the highest and longest of its kind in New Zealand. Supported by seven-metre-high towers and thick wire cable, it can carry eight people at a time.
Its predecessor, built 26 years ago by the former Forest Service, was long past its use-by date and could not cater for the growing numbers of trampers and picnickers who flocked to the area.
August 30th, 2007 at 7:20 am
That’s tongue in cheek bb
August 30th, 2007 at 8:09 am
>>No, I’ve never been to Europe.
It’s obviously an old town, but operates in much the way you describe. Very pleasant. Cars are forced to a crawl around the narrow streets, and can’t access the center at all. Most are sent around the outside. Bikes and walking are the most efficient modes of transportation.
August 30th, 2007 at 8:31 am
‘It is a common misunderstanding that higher housing densities need to result in lower standards of space around and within the home. While large detached houses will tend to be more spacious than town centre apartments, the case studies suggest that it is possible to provide generous living space and, at the same time, achieve higher development densities.’
I don’t get that statement. I’m thinking of the detached houses being built on the cleaned out rubbish dump down Wairakei Rd (Chch) they are like your cross lease situation… Apartments, row houses and semi detached houses would allow more space around??
jh.
[pity we couldn’t add a photo Frog]
August 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
JH
It’s a geometry problem - 3 dimensions.
Basically any common boundary between elements that can be reduced in size permits the size of other elements to grow. The space between houses is often a wasted little sliver which isn’t fit for a footpath, but added together with more such slivers and adding houses atop other houses, gives more room outside the houses for parks and playgrounds. I have seen it in Russia and I have seen it in NYC.
It isn’t quite the same as a detached farmhouse out on the prairie, but it works. Maybe I don’t understand the question quite, cause I am sure you know everything I am about to say.
Take your average 150 M^2 house on one level as a design. Surround it with some space to give it “privacy” and now do that 4-5 times. Count up the footprint in terms of land used and compare it to having a stack of 4 of them, one atop the other. The obvious gain here is in land area. The loss is that someone has to walk up four flights when they come home or you need an elevator.
Which would be a reasonable investment. Elevator companies that is.
As housing density increases so will demand for the contraptions.
Where this is not apparently the case the design advantage has been used instead to cram far more people into that given area with no consideration given to allowing them parks and playgrounds. This is a profit oriented design tradeoff and has nothing to do with whether apartments or detached houses are used…
respectfully
BJ
August 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I have read about building economics, it was the semantics of the statement I didn’t understand. It seemed to be saying the oppostie of what I would have expected.. our new subdivisions with spacious single level houses and pocket handkerchief sections are an inefficient use of space (ignoring reality)
jh
August 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
BB: “And fight against rubbish like this”
What, you want the Green Party to start a campaign against humorous newspaper articles where a minor tongue-in-cheek remark amongst lots of others by a spokesperson is blown up by the journalist and used as the headline by the sub-editor in order to deliberately draw the eye of unsuspecting readers looking out for proof of maori/cultural/iwi concerns interfering in development so they can feel vindicated and self-righteous?
You want us to start a campaign against dog whistle journalism?
Or perhaps you didn’t read the article properly, just saw the headline and then got on your high horse?
Does this mean that the rest of your understanding of the world is similarly based on mis-reading of newspaper articles and seeing things where none exist?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
JH
I was right. I did NOT understand your question
respectfully BJ
August 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Bringing this thread back on topic.
Personally I find it extremely presumptious of non-Green membership trying to dictate what the party should stand for.
http://www.greens.org/s-r/43/43-16.html
BB I sympathise with your experience with the union official when you were an apprentice, but please don’t tar the whole worker movement with the same brush. I too recognise the morally bankrupt state of the current union system as like all beauracrats, union officials, especially when they are government mandated, are prone to narcissim, selfishness, parochialism, pettiness and corruption, which is why that the revival of decentralized, grassroots, and above all voluntary unionism is so important. The relationship between worker and boss need not be adversarial, I personally would prefer a collaborative, cooperative one.
BB.
“What I am motivated by is personal freedom, personal responsibility, one rule for all, the end to the welfare state (as we currently know it) and lower taxes.”
So am I BB. The cruel irony of it is that it appears many among the socialist fraternity aren’t aware that you don’t need to tax a worker’s wages or even business to fund expenditure on service that people want, universal healthcare, infrastructure, universal education, paid maternity leave, superannuation etc without the redistibution of income that currently happens thanks to our current government funding regime.
“Social programs� don’t have to be paid for by punitive taxes, due to the delinking of monetary value from a commodity value thanks to the US’ abandonment of the gold standard under Nixon and rapid digitalization of credit and financial services in the West, its entirely possible for governments to provide a universal basic income for its citizens by issuing interest free money through the Central Bank, like Michael Joseph Savage did in the 1930s to fund the public works programs in the 1930s, and we wouldn’t even have to the suffer the effects of inflation as they lamentably did as we have tools like the Consumer Price Index and the ‘Exchange Settlement Accounts System’ (ESAS) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that they lacked to monitor the amount of money that is in the economy.
“Where will the money come from?�; the Government’s answers were never explicit, but in fact a good deal of the money came from State credit created by the Reserve Bank. This institution, by an Act of 1936, had become a fully governmental body; where these expensive programmes could not be financed out of current revenue or overseas funds, the Government simply borrowed from its own bank. Neither the housing programme nor the guaranteed price could have been financed without such credit.�
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/H/HistorySettlementAndDevelopment/193549 theLabourRegime/en
I believe the issuing of a universal basic income is the only way to satisfy peoples basic needs, food, security, healthcare, and shelter, as governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the bid to provide full employment for their citizens and to promote development in the Third World, which has abysmally failed.
These failed attempts has led to the current farce in the United States where corporations are granted benefits that cost the wider community (who actually pay for them) an estimated US$125 BILLION (I’m not sure of the figures in Europe), and citizens in Third World countries are forced to pay back debts owed to irresponsible lenders in the West, which are often unrepayable (where the interest payments amount to more than the country produces) or odious (where the money was loaned to and used by regimes that repressed their peoples or was misspent on prestige projects that did not actually benefit people who were most in need).
http://www.usbig.net/papers/013-Sheahen.doc
http://alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/2005/10/myths-of-corporate-globali sation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World_debt
August 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Criticise unions all you want. So you have bad memories of unions from the past, get over it. At the end of the day, in a union or not, we need them, just like employers need the Employers and Manufacturers Association (their union).
Trade unions are actually trying to do something about the pay gap between us and Australia.
While the National Party states the bleeding obvious, they offer nothing of substance to actually do something about the problem. An all too common scenario with the National Party across the board.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:04 am
SleepyTreeHugger,
Whilst interesting, I don’t think your ideas would work. A government can’t create money out of nowhere, and then go and spend it on infrastructure, services or whatever.
The flaw in your reasoning is that in the end, a countries wealth comes down to how productive its workers are (I am neglecting exploitation of foreign workers, to simplify the argument). If the government wants to build (for example) 100 000 new state houses, then the workers in New Zealand either have to be able to produce all the materials and services required domestically, or produce enough exports to trade for imports to build the houses. Sure, you can raise debt, but in the end, this has to be paid for through production of goods and services by workers. You just can’t pull something out of thin air.
Now it follows that if a countries wealth is created by the workers, any government expenditure on infrastructure and services necessarily must be funded by taking a proportion of what the workers produce. Taxation on businesses is still taking a portion of the workers production, since company profits are just the portion of the workers production which has been taken by the capitalist (supposedly justified because the capitalist owns the means of production). So I simply can’t see how your idea that the government can provide a whole lot of services without taxing someone will work.
August 31st, 2007 at 6:18 am
Sleepy,
“Michael Joseph Savage did in the 1930s to fund the public works programs in the 1930s,”
That statment is 100% correct and was used to kick start the economy during the depression.
What you are forgetting is that as the economy picked up the interest free loans (which could quite rightly be called “printed money”) were withdrawn from circulation through taxation. While he did distribute “printed money” it was recollected.
We are not in the same position that Michael Savage found the economy in back in the 1930’s. We have huge monetary surplusses (that should not have been collected in the first place) and full employment.
Savage had no monetary surpluses to fund public works and get the unemployed paying taxes again.
Whilst we currently have surplusses and full employment. We do not need to “print money”. Just need a government not to collect so much and create this massive surplus.
Those surplusses should now be pumped into infastructure. But with full employement who will build the infastructure?
Shane,
“So you have bad memories of unions from the past, get over it.”
We did, hence no more compulsary unionism. Even from a government supported by unions.
Only one way to get NZL pay rates up to AUS levels. Increased productivity. How are unions working with the employers and getting this increased productivity?
Or should the employers take less profit?
With the increased interest rates comes the need for businesses to increase their return on investment figures. If the bank interest rate is 10%, business requires at least 16% (and I suggest that 20% is now the norm) ROI figures to justify opening the doors.
Now drop interest rates to 2% and the ROI figures drop as well, hence more capital available for redistribution to the workers plus more capital available for the busines owner to invest in faster and more productive equipement.
In summary the answer is quite simple. Get the reserve bank to drop the interest rate to 2% and we would be all better off.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:01 am
Sleepy
While your post was most interesting your argument does not hold water, I thought that type of “social credit” economic thinking had died a long time ago.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:13 am
SleepyTreehugger Says:
August 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Personally I find it extremely presumptious of non-Green membership trying to dictate what the party should stand for.
”””””””’
I think there is a big vacuum in so far as the best way to do (whatever) and achieve a sustainable just society. [As an example (above)> Boy Wonder the property developer v’s New Urbanism… The Boy Wonders of this world won’t bring us the best result…(best for him, perhaps)]. If the Greens were exceptionally intelligent and prescient, I might be more impressed, but in the meantime these issues need to be thrashed out in the public arena.
jh
August 31st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Well, what u know, a thinking person has brought up “social credit”.
Sleepytreehugger is on the right track, most or all your dismissals in one way or another are not(don’t just take my word for it though..)
Democrats for Social Credit(www.democrats.org.nz) seek the same control that the following quotation illustrates from the illustrious Henry Kissenger, through the exact same mechanisms except Dems seek it, in order to distribution the benefits to the whole population.
“Who controls the food supply controls the people, who controls energy can control whole continents, who controls money can control the world”.
But given that:
(’I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television…. You put something on the television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the TV set contradicts the images, people start trying to change the world to make it like the TV set images…..’
Hal Becker, media ‘expert’ and management consultant, the Futures Group, in an interview in 1981)
DSC have quite an purposely unfashionable task.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Sleepy
Repeat after me. (never mind the grammar) “There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch”
Say it again.
Absorb it into your soul. Somebody pays, and the fact is that you can’t even control who the somebody will be. It could wind up as a financial collapse for your children to endure or the destruction of the economy of some distant country…it could be fairly distributed amongst the people or (as is usually the case) unfairly distributed. Just remember that someone always pays. ALWAYS. There are exactly no exceptions to this rule.
If you muck about with the currency to engineer a surplus to pay out money for nothing, then the penalty will be borne by people who lose as the currency begins to resemble that of Zimbabwe.
If you choose some other way it will also come back and get you, or your kids or SOMEONE eventually. The rule doesn’t say WHO pays, it just says that someone will.
It doesn’t matter who controls the world…. someone will pay. The person “in control” may control who pays.. but even that isn’t as straightforward as it sounds.
ciao
respectfully
BJ
August 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Sleepy & Gerrit,
“Michael Joseph Savage did in the 1930s to fund the public works programs in the 1930s,�
That statement is 80% false and it was not used to kick start the economy during the depression. Labour was not elected till the depression was almost fully recovered.
“where these expensive programmes could not be financed out of current revenue or overseas funds, the Government simply borrowed from its own bank”
That statement refers to State Housing and possibly hydro electric shemes. According to the Official Yearbooks at the time his is how they paid for public works on roads and railways:
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/images/1930s.gif
August 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
samiuela
“A government can’t create money out of nowhere, and then go and spend it on infrastructure, services or whatever.”
How do you think banks create their money? Did you not notice that Central Banks recently injected HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars of “liquidity” into the “marketplace” to combat the effects of the farce that is the subprime collapse? How do you think they accomplished that spectacular feat? Are you aware that 97% of money in circulation is in the form of interest bearing loans? The “creation” of money out of thin air is the basis of our current financial and economic system. Are you aware of the origin of our income tax system? It began, because the Sir George Grey saw a political oppurtunity to introduce a land tax to appeal to Pakeha settlers wished to own land, but couldn’t because speculators had already purchased huge swathes at rockbottom prices after the Maori Land Wars, who then sold it to wealthy land owners, whom eventually controlled most of the land in New Zealand during the late 1800s. He believed that by implementing a land tax, it would discourage people from owning large amounts of land and would encourage them to sell land to settlers at reasonable prices, but these landowners found wiley ways of fooling the government and avoiding the government so in 1891 Premier John Ballance passed New Zealand’s first income tax, incorporated in the 1891 Land and Income tax, directed primarily at corporate activity and land values.
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/FEB00%20Tax%20NZ.htm
“The flaw in your reasoning is that in the end, a countries wealth comes down to how productive its workers are (I am neglecting exploitation of foreign workers, to simplify the argument).”
False. If that were so, China would be the richest country in the world. In GDP they may be, but due to the abysmal wages that their workers are paid their Purchasing Power Parity and GDP per capita is woeful and now the US are demanding that China must purchase more mortgage securities from the US Housing department mortgage association, which in light of recent events surrounding the subprime market collapse it would be tantamount to economic suicide, rather than investing in internal development.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/jul202007.html
Its due to how much money the banks are willing to create. It basically boils down to political expediancy and those who believe the myth that Central Banks are politically independant are at best naive and at worst deluded. Supplyside/demand side economics are inextricably linked. Do you think that workers during the Great Depression somehow became less productive or that there were fewer resources available to be utilized? The primary cause was the collapse of the US financial system due to the 1929 Stock Market Crash, which almost happened again in 1998, and was only thwarted due to the Feds’ bailout of the Long Term Capital Managment hedge fund.
The rationale behind my argument is best explained by reading this article from the Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8638
Western countries trade with the Third World so transnational corporations can take advantage of cheap labour and resources that they have and Third World countries trade with the West a) to obtain technology and b) they are force to thanks to their “structural adjustment” agreements with the IMF after their financial collapses that resulted from the irresponsible lending practices by Western banks in the 1970s and during the Asian Crisis in the mid 90s.
Gerrit
“What you are forgetting is that as the economy picked up the interest free loans (which could quite rightly be called “printed moneyâ€?) were withdrawn from circulation through taxation. While he did distribute “printed moneyâ€? it was recollected.”
What I just believe that it is not necessary for governments merely to redistribute income from one person to another in order to meet people’s basic human needs, which is implicit in the current social services programme, but it is possible for governments to provide basic human needs through a universal basic income and anything else they want they need to pay for from their income from work.
The way I envision that people pay for social services and infrastructure in the future is that the government would create money from the Reserve Bank rather being required to borrow it from private banks at interest, the government tenders out contracts for construction to private companies and lease out the infrastructure to private companies or non profit trusts (healthcare and ACC) who provide the services. People would then pay for those services out of their universal basic incomes/wages to the service companies. The money that the service companies pay the government would be retired out of the money supply. I thought of the idea due to the farce that was the privatisation of our infrastructure in the 1990s when the government had to bail out the BNZ, Tranzrail, and Air Newzealand with BILLIONS of our money and due to the monopolistic practices of Telecom and Vodaphone.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
bjchip
“Absorb it into your soul. Somebody pays, and the fact is that you can’t even control who the somebody will be. It could wind up as a financial collapse for your children to endure or the destruction of the economy of some distant country…it could be fairly distributed amongst the people or (as is usually the case) unfairly distributed. Just remember that someone always pays. ALWAYS. There are exactly no exceptions to this rule.”
Its not satisfying basic human needs that cause economic catastrophes, but rather due to the stupidity, arrogance, greed, and narcissism of the banking elite.
Why should people lack the basic needs like food, shelter, and clean water whilst others continue obliviously with their “jetset lifestyles” and banker’s get away scott free without being liable for monumental blunders like the 1929/1989 Stockmarket Crash, the Savings and Loans scandal, the collapse of Long Term Capital Managment, and the Third World economic crises’ of the 1980s and 1990s?
August 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I meant
“False. If that were so, China would be the richest country in the world. In GDP they may be the third richest, in GDP”
August 31st, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Kevyn,
I bow to your superior knowledge. Seems I got confused with the issuing of New Zealand coinage in the 1930 to replace the English and Australian coinage then in circulation and used as legal tender (Australian coinage accounted for some 40% of all coinage in circulation).
http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research/bulletin/2002_2006/2003mar66_1matthew s.pdf
It is not clear if there was a swap of the New coinage for old. Hence my confusion and ignorance.
Show the power of the internet that we can get the correct anwers so quickly.
Cheers
August 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pm
sleepy,
china would be the richist country in the world, if they had the same technology penetration as we do, the reason they dont is because compared to first world countries they have large ineffecency, how wealthy a country is is a product of the capital they hold. the capital is a product of the size of the workforce and the productive capacity of that workforce, for example 10 workers creating 2 units a hour is less productive than 5 workers producing 6 units per hour.
also, what you need to realise is that money is just the expresion of capital, if a country has the same amount of capital at point B as it did at point A yet it has more money, then that money is going to be less valuble.
if a country is to have more money without decreasing the value of its currency then it must increase its capital, an example of which would be mining for minerals or oil. to use a poor similie involving a cake, because im eating one presently; a countrys capital can be seen as a cake and the money can be seen as slices of that cake, to have more slices the size of each slice must decrease unless the size of the cake increases, the cakes size can be increased by taking part of another cake or by aquiring the raw ingreadients to make more cake such as floor, etc.
poor similie but it does the trick, essentialy its the same as the law of conservation of energy, there is only so much energy and that cant change, what does change however is the form of that energy (capital, raw materials, waste, etc)(although to be correct those all represent forms of capital its just ive been using capital in the traditional sense for the rest of the post so yea)
Sapient
August 31st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Sleepy
Don’t confuse justice with the concept that someone must pay.
One is a desireable outcome and the other is as I see it, a law of nature.
Which is why mucking about with the currency itself is not a good idea.
respectfully
BJ
August 31st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Sapient
Don’t assume that I’m ignorant or naive about economics. What you’re saying is how money is SUPPOSED to be, but it is quite obviously how it is NOT. Increasing productivity IS advisable to prevent inflation, but is NOT a prerequesitie for economic growth if you measure wealth, merely as the total value of financial transactions within a country in a year, which is the definition of GDP.
Read this article if you don’t believe me.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/jul202007.html
Some articles to support my argument that Central Banks are NOT politically independant.
Chinese Yuan. Check
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9184053
Japanese Yen. Check
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8679006
U.S. Dollar. Check
http://tacticalinvestor.com/contrarian6.html
Something MUST be going on for neoliberals like the Cato Institute and post-Kenysians like Paul Krugman to agree on something.
“When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there’s no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ex=1267678800 &en=3c58e88683efdd2f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
“The new moral hazard in financial markets has its source in what can be best described as the Greenspan Doctrine. The doctrine was clearly enunciated by Alan Greenspan in his December 19, 2002 speech. Mr. Greenspan argued that asset bubbles cannot be detected and monetary policy ought not to in any case be used to offset them. The collapse of bubbles can be detected, however, and monetary policy ought to be used to offset the fallout.”
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8638
bjchip
You haven’t answered my argument that satisfying basic human needs doesn’t cause inflation and economic crises, rather irresponsible actions by government agencies and their friends in the banking industry DO. THEY do not pay, the POOR pay. You are as much aware that the monetary policy followed by Western governments, particularly the United States is exactly the same as that of Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the ONLY difference is that the Western countries are able to hide the effects by a) purposeful manipulation of government economic statistics and b) Zimbabwe suffer the catastrophic effects of inflation, because Mugabe is a nutcase and people don’t even want to live in Zimbabwe let alone to continue producing goods and services.
The cynical politically motivated attempts by the US and Europe to substitute biofuels for oil is primarily responsible for the recent surge in food prices over the last year, not because people decided to eat a few extra burgers or tortillas, because they have more money.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5106
Do you think that they would be able to provide BILLIONS of dollars in subsides each year to politically powerful special interest groups if their stranglehold on the monetary system was wrested from them?
August 31st, 2007 at 11:04 pm
sleepy,
i make no presumption about your economics knowledge, i was mearly trying to phrase it in as simple a way as possible so as to provide an easy place from which to argue, i have not read those articles yet but will as soon as i have the time
sapient
August 31st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
SleepyTreehugger,
I am not an economist, and probably know less about economics than you do. Nevertheless, it strikes me that you are confusing several different issues.
Firstly, forget about money, and focus on the things you want to do with the government expenditure. Presumably it is things like building hospitals, houses, schools, railways, buying food etc. These require the input of labour (and a Marxist would claim it is the average amount of labour which goes into these products and services which determines their value). Whatever, if you don’t have the labour to produce these things, you simply won’t get them, no matter how much money you print.
Secondly, you make some points about the banking industry. The reality is, profits generated in the banking industry do come from somewhere, as you correctly point out. It may not be obvious where the profits originally come from, since the economy is so complex, but they surely don’t materialise out of thin air. Personally, I think the banking industry, and speculators have a lot to answer for … something I think we both agree on.
September 1st, 2007 at 12:51 am
“What they tell me is this story is about how the British financiers were looking for somebody to counter Douglas because the social credit movement was becoming so powerful. That’s when they discovered John Maynard Keynes. The whole theory of Keynesianism is when you have government deficit financing, high income tax, and essentially an inflationary growth policy to constantly pay down your debt. All of this was to counter Douglas because they saw that if Douglas came in with the social credit and the National Dividend, the power of the bankers and financing the production/purchasing power gap would be cut off at the knees. It became part of the political issue of the century, even though nobody had ever heard about him because the newspapers in the 1920s to not even mention Douglas’ name in print.
Behind the scenes, this was going on, and meanwhile, Douglas was saying, “Look, you guys are bringing on the next world war with this policy, and I can tell you I’ve seen a documentary of this. What’s going to happen is that the European nations are going to destroy each other, and the financial giant of the world will become the United States. That is what you were doing to yourselves.” They couldn’t stop, and they went ahead with it anyway.”
That’s for treehugger.
September 1st, 2007 at 1:36 am
Gerrit said “Show the power of the internet that we can get the correct anwers so quickly.”
Um, on tis occasion you only got a partially correct answer from me. The yearbooks ommitted some vital info which led me astray. The Main Highwas Board annual reports reveal that in 1934 and 1935 half their petrol revenue was transfered to the consolidated fund, hence the big drop in their total revenue in those two years. The yearbook gave the pence per gallon for each tax but only the total revenue for the highway tax. Hence the algebra went badly wrong. The government’s revenue went up in ‘34 & ‘35 by about the same amount that graph shows it going down. Mind you, I only included the government petrol tax as a source of public works funds because it was actually intended for unemployment relief and most of that was on public works such as the Milford road. I suspect the misappropriated million pounds went into paying off the government’s debts to foreign banks.
I wasn’t aware of much of the info about the NZ currency being so recent. Thanks. Maybe it was used as a tool to mint more money before the RB was established.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:31 am
I found a link criticizing Social Credit theory.
http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/VIII,2,1-13-2003/Zoric.htm
I did Econ 101,201 years ago and the lecturer said that the interest rate was a price, and if you twiddle with this bit it affects that bit.
Green Economics is a gray area I think, (somewhat Utopian).
September 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Sleepy
“You haven’t answered my argument that satisfying basic human needs doesn’t cause inflation and economic crises”
True, because that was NOT the point I was making. My point is that satisfying basic human needs costs something. This means that SOMEONE has to pay the price.
Your answer has to identify “WHO PAYS” and justify it with a why. That’s all. I think you are trying to tell me, but I haven’t worked out yet what you mean by it all… partly because I am mostly busy trying to do my real job (which involves identity management, Solaris zones, system design and a lot of work). I’ll try to understand it better, but my first reading left me with the impression that there was free money on offer, and if that is used as a principle then the money is going to become worthless in some way. It is not free… someone has to supply it… you cannot just print it or it is worth no more than the price of the ink, or less than the same amount of toilet paper which actually has legitimate uses and doesn’t clog the sewer if you flush it down the toilet.
The folks who have been running the current system into the ground are pretty bright but they haven’t ever accepted this principle. It is one of their favorite ideas, that you can get something for nothing. It is one of the most bitter fights I have ever had with “economists”. The actual answers to the question however, tend to take the form of *Chinese Peasants who save too much money” and “future generations”…. and as we march into the future both of these groups are increasingly p!ssed off at the bankers.
I am only pointing out that the laws of thermodynamics aren’t irrelevant, they are simply inescapable.
Nothing is for nothing. Nuthins fer nuthin. There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
That’s all. If you have a better way to determine who pays that’s fine, and I reckon that better ways can be found. What you can’t tell me (without an argument) is that nobody pays, or that there is no price.
respectfully
BJ
September 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
sapient.
Thanks for your clarification.
samiuela.
“Whatever, if you don’t have the labour to produce these things, you simply won’t get them, no matter how much money you print.”
People don’t work merely because government’s coerce them into it or even to merely satisfy basic human needs such as food and shelter, but to participate in leisure activites, personal mobility, etc etc. Forms of a universal basic income have been implemented in the United States with much success, but it has not gained wide popularity, because it conflicts with powerful entrenched interests i.e. politicians, government beauracrats, financiers, and corporate interests.
“The New Jersey test results were similar. They determined that in a national guaranteed income program:
· The reduction in labor supply is likely to be quite modest, less than 10%, at most.
· Any reduction will be distributed across many workers rather than concentrated among a few.
· The degree of reduction will not be very sensitive to the particular guarantee and tax rate chosen.”
http://www.usbig.net/papers/013-Sheahen.doc
“The reality is, profits generated in the banking industry do come from somewhere, as you correctly point out.”
Read this interview of Bernard Litaer, who oversaw the creation of the Euro.
“Furthermore, I believe that greed and competition are not a result of immutable human temperament; I have come to the conclusion that greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using.
For example, we can produce more than enough food to feed everybody, and there is definitely enough work for everybody in the world, but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. The scarcity is in our national currencies. In fact, the job of central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.
Money is created when banks lend it into existence (see article by Thomas Greco on page 19). When a bank provides you with a $100,000 mortgage, it creates only the principal, which you spend and which then circulates in the economy. The bank expects you to pay back $200,000 over the next 20 years, but it doesn’t create the second $100,000 - the interest. Instead, the bank sends you out into the tough world to battle against everybody else to bring back the second $100,000.”
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=886
jh
That guy in the article that you linked to reveals his ignorance of current, modern, financial realities.
“Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital writes, “In current theory, the excess cash piling up around the world is like manna from heaven. Don’t believe the hype. Liquidity is merely a euphemism for inflation. Asset prices, including stocks, are simply rising to reflect the diminished value of the currencies in which they are traded. Wealth is not being created, merely re-priced.”
“If that had been your question, I could have saved us both a lot of time by merely sending you to Online.wsj.com, which reports that, “‘Margin Debt’ Hits Record $353 Billion on NYSE”, which means that, “Investors are borrowing record sums of money to finance trades on the New York Stock Exchange.”
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/jul202007.html
“As a Big Swinging Dick hedge fund with the most stellar partners and a huge capital base, LTCM was able to convince banks to lend them money at rates that were not available to lesser mortals (including investment banks like Salomon Brothers). LTCM used this credit to leverage their capital base by a factor of twenty to thirty times. In the first few years this allowed LCTM to make spectacular profits for themselves and their investors.”
http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/genius_fails.html
Another article in support of a universal basic income.
http://thewatermelon.org/content/view/93/32/1/3/
September 1st, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Toad can you please upload my post.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
bjchip
“Don’t confuse justice with the concept that someone must pay.
One is a desireable outcome and the other is as I see it, a law of nature.
Which is why mucking about with the currency itself is not a good idea.”
I’m confusing no such thing. I am NOT advocating the free dispensing of money to all in sundry and to hell with the consequences any more than I am saying that there will be no costs. What I AM saying is that a) it will ensure that the costs will be apportioned more fairly than they currently are and b) the costs won’t be nearly as onerous as the dissmissers of the idea say it will be.
The aspirations of the Greens will NOT be able to be met without a drastic reform of the current economic and financial systems despite how trendy it is to say so, how much fiddling around the edges that popular Green parties like the German Greens do, how much bleating and handringing is done by aging rockstars and Hollywood actors, and how many world government forums you go to, in the end its not gonna make a jot of difference, without drastic change.
I think people often forget that money was intended as a voluntary means of exchange between two consenting parties, but what it has mutated into is a form of economic extortion. No different now than it was during the Middle Ages and the Age of “Reason”. Actually its becoming very much like the age of autocracy, where a small number of people are controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, particularly land through their suborning of governments, who provide them favours in the guise of helping the wider community. The latest debacle of the Subprime real estate market is a classic example of this.
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/article.cgi/2032.html
Everyone
Despite how trendy it is to assert to the contrary, Marx’s concepts of Dialectic Materialism and the class struggle have NOT been disproven and social darwiniasm was not defeated with the overthrow of Italian and German fascism due to World War II. Both fascism and social darwinism are very much alive and well.
BUFFETT: It’s class