- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

NZ Herald defends John Key's Hazardous Morality



The NZ Herald is doing all they can this week to make the slow love to National that passes as editorial comment these days. Yesterday they minimized the numbers of uninsured in the Christchurch quake to soften Key's claim that to bail out the 10 000 uninsured would be a moral hazard (where as bailing out Mr Magoo at SCF with their well connected investors to the tune of $1.6billion WAS NOT A MORAL HAZARD), they also ran an editorial backing Maurice Williamson's claim that concerns over Crafar Farm sales was racist (even though Maurice has just been caught out using racist jokes against Samoans and Muslims).

Today the Herald is siding with Key in their editorial to deny the uninsured support and the most hilarious thing is the NZ Herald don't even once mention the SCF bailout.

So once again folks - bailing out uninsured quake victims is a moral hazard, bailing out Mr Magoo and his well connected investor mates IS NOT a moral hazard.

I love right wing hazardous morality.

15 Comments:

At 8/9/10 8:21 am, Anonymous sdm said...

We shouldnt be bailing out either. How is that for consistency.

 
At 8/9/10 8:30 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Yet the Government did bail out Mr Magoo, so what is good for Magoo, should be good for the 10 000 uninsured quake survivors.

Tell me Scott, did you stop paying insurance when Labour helped the none insured in the Manawatu and the Bay of Plenty floodings?

 
At 8/9/10 8:44 am, Anonymous sdm said...

No I didnt - but tell me - what excuse is there for not having insurance, when a $25,000 contents policy can be picked up for $6 a week. It cant be affordable (or, if it is, take a $10,000 policy).

This is why you get insurance.

 
At 8/9/10 8:52 am, Anonymous James said...

No bailing out the irresponsible with stolen money...in ANY case!

 
At 8/9/10 9:14 am, Blogger Bomber said...

Right. So the moral hazard consequences you have claimed as the reason we should turn our backs on these 10 000 uninsured Christchurch quake survivors didn't in fact change your insurance plans after Labour bailed out the uninsured in the Manawatu and the Bay of Plenty floodings? And based on the high level of insurance in this country, Labour's compassion in the Manawatu and the Bay of Plenty floodings didn't have this consequence you have been warning us of.

So a dire consequence you predict hasn't occurred personally or nationally, yet we should heed it now even though this is the very same week the Government bailed out Mr Magoo and his well connected investors?

Scott, I'm not here to defend why people chose not to be insured, there are a thousand reasons why poor people don't buy insurance, to insinuate the whole lot of them are stupid and should reap what they sow when the well connected managed to get their $1.6billion without any of those histrionics from you speaks volumes.

Whatever the reason why the uninsured chose to be uninsured should not matter, they have found themselves in this situation and the question for the rest of us as citizens is what should we do to help and that question is asked in the shadow of the Magoo bailout.

What was good for Magoo, is good for the uninsured, to turn our backs on fellow NZers who will be the poorest in this disaster and less able to resource the shock based on some mythical sense of the self sufficient responsible self you all cling to is as deluded as Alan Hubbards fanatical followers.

You've admitted the danger that no one will buy insurance didn't personally impact on you and based on the high level of house insurance it hasn't impacted nationally when Labour helped out the uninsured in the Manawatu and the Bay of Plenty floodings, can't we put aside the political musings for the reality of those who are hurting in this disaster?

The second largest city in our country has been badly hurt, if we could look after the investors of SCF, we can look after the 10 000 uninsured Christchurch quake survivors.

 
At 8/9/10 9:19 am, Anonymous Richard said...

sdm what excuse is there for not having insurance, when a $25,000 contents policy can be picked up for $6 a week...

Other than being poor or stupid or badly informed there is little excuse.

However, that's not the point. What's your excuse for denying aid to some citizens of Christchurch?

You seriously want to ruin their lives even more because they failed to make what you think is the correct decision over how to spend $6? Isn't that just a bit psychotic?

 
At 8/9/10 9:26 am, Anonymous Sdm said...

And I am being clear - we shouldnt be bailing out SCF. If 1 Bill is recoverable - recover it - and pay everyone 66 cents in the dollar. That is the cost of risk. Deal with it.

Obviously most houses themselves will be insured. Landlords will take insurance out, and if you have a mortgage it is often a requirement of the lender.

So really, what you are saying is that we should be paying to replace peoples televisions who didnt have insurance. Is this your position?

 
At 8/9/10 11:19 am, Anonymous Richard said...

sdm: Obviously most houses themselves will be insured.

Well the NZ Herald (and apparently the PM) estimates that around 5000 damaged homes in CHCH are uninsured.

So really, what you are saying is that we should be paying to replace peoples televisions who didnt have insurance. Is this your position?

No, it is about helping the owners of the estimated 5000 damaged and uninsured homes.

And it is also about helping the (presumably) larger number of people who, say, rent and have no contents insurance. A TV is the least of their possessions. A large number of people too poor to have insurance probably don't own TVs anyway (or at least not outright; they probably have shitty Hire Purchase contracts instead).

Can you not see that it is better to help these people, than not help them?

Sure, it would be better for everybody if everyone had (and could afford) insurance. But given that some people don't there is a moral obligation to help those people in need.

 
At 8/9/10 11:30 am, Anonymous sdm said...

"You seriously want to ruin their lives even more because they failed to make what you think is the correct decision over how to spend $6? Isn't that just a bit psychotic?"

No I dont want to ruin their lives. What I want to see is a focus on fixing core infrastructure, power, water, waste water, gas, phones etc - because they are a priority and the government should be footing the bill.

Next is the humanitarian effort - providing shelter, food, warmth, counselling, whatever. Government should do that.

Replacing someone's television however is not essential, and if people dont have a contents policy then they shouldnt be covered.

Its not denying aid.

 
At 8/9/10 2:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SCF was under a guarantee by the labour govnt so national was contractually bound to bail them out.

Obviously this nuance escape you.

This post is an failed exercise lame partisanship which fails to address the real issue.

If you are so concerned about guarentee why is there not a post attacking labour for adopting it in the first place. But this would be a principled argument so I can understand why you shy away from it.

 
At 8/9/10 2:23 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Obviously this nuance escape you.
No brave anonymous poster, the nuance that has escaped you is the extension that National gave SCF.

 
At 8/9/10 2:41 pm, Anonymous Sdm said...

Actually on that point anon 2.02, Bomber is correct. As a centre-right voter, Im horrified about SCF

 
At 8/9/10 3:14 pm, Anonymous Richard Love said...

sdmWhat I want to see is a focus on fixing core infrastructure...Next is the humanitarian effort - providing shelter, food, warmth, counselling, whatever.

Yes. No one is saying that these should not be the first priority.

Providing for this humanitarian care long-term (shelter, food, warmth) is exactly what giving aid to the uninsured is all about.

It's not about TVs; you're the one who keeps talking about TVs.

 
At 8/9/10 5:08 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Obviously this nuance escape you.
No brave anonymous poster, the nuance that has escaped you is the extension that National gave SCF."

Glad to see you didn't address the issue in the first place of the guarentee the LABOUR implemented. You obviously have no answer because whatever you just said has nothing to do with the point I just raised.

Keep quite on the issue while the adults sort it.

 
At 8/9/10 5:28 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

God I love brave anonymous posters like you, 2 things brave anonymous poster.

1: No one is complaining about the original guarantee, everyone agrees that guarantee was needed, ask Alan Bollard who saw a run on $100 notes in 2008, it is the extension that is politically questionable, your lack of understanding is the problem here.

2: Keep quite on the issue while the adults sort it.
I think you meant to say quiet not quite. This is terribly amusing as it was your attempt at an insult from a position of misplaced superiority.

You made my day Anon.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home