NZ Herald minimizes uninsured in Christchurch & calls us racist
Nice bit of spin for the Government in the Herald this morning, Q+A and The Nation both had the amount of uninsured at 10 000 in Christchurch, the NZ Herald has made it the 5% National average, the NZ Herald also refuses to compare the 10 000 uninsured Christchurch Quake victims to the $1.6 Billion John Key bailed out Mr Magoo with last week.
Bailing out Mr Magoo's well connected greedy investors = NOT MORAL HAZARD
Bailing out 10 000 uninsured Christchurch Quake survivors = MORAL HAZARD
Right now we've had the worst natural disaster in 80 years and the leader of our country is slipping off dodging questions as to why he bailed out SCF but won't bail out the 10 000 uninsured Christchurch quake survivors to visit the Queen, and I mention the Queen in reference to his comment last week that teachers were disconnected from the real world. The real impact of the quake hasn't hit yet and Key is off globe trotting. He flew back from an important trade deal for the deaths of a few servicemen at ANZAC Day. This quake demands much more attention.
When the NZ Herald weren't asking John Key why he bailed out well connected greedy SCF investors, while minimizing the number of uninsured and not bailing them out, the Herald were agreeing we are all racist for having issues with the Crafar farms.
So the Herald and Williamson think we are racist? It has nothing to do with the $200 000 donation to the National Party by Natural Dairy NZ, oh no, it's because we are racist. It has nothing to do with the fact China offers 0% interest loans to buy up NZ land or that they won't allow foreigners to purchase land in their country, oh no. It's because we are all racist. It has nothing to do with Beijing via Natural Dairy NZ funding a new political party to run in the next election, oh no. It's us being racist. It has nothing to do with the murky financial scandals involving the Chinese financiers backing the Crafar take over. Oh no. It's us being racist.
The real joke here is that this clown Williamson is in charge of allowing Natural Dairy NZ to buy up the Crafar farms, and let's not forget a lawyer advising the Government how to make it easier to sell assets overseas was working for the Chinese company wanting to buy the Crafar farms!
I just don't think China should be able to buy NZ as cheaply as they have bought the National Party, nice to see the Herald thinks otherwise.
As part of their John Key cheerleading team, will the NZ Herald be appointing Whaleoil as their on-line editor next?
posted by Bomber @ 6:22 am
18 comments
18 Comments:
If the government is going to bail out uninsured I think I might just stop buying insurance.
If the Government are going to start bailing out rich investor mates from failed greedy investment companies, I might start buying shares.
I love how your moral hazard and John Key's moral hazard are only important for people who suffer one of the worst natural disasters in NZ's history - the poor who can't afford insurance are certainly less deserving than National's well connected greedy investor mates right Mike?
I'd ask John Key about it, but he's off to see the Queen on Friday.
The poor who cant afford insurance? Mate if you can afford to own a house, you can afford insurance.
Maybe all those who bought "SUV's, Plasma TVs and cosmetic surgery all on the credit card" should have taken out a insurance policy.
the poor who can't afford insurance
Yet they can afford to buy a house?
Fuck the SCF investors, and fuck the uninsured.
Edit. Too right sdm.
This is the middle class that you criticise so much for living on easy credit that you want to bail out bomber.
Buying a plasma tv on credit = bad in bombers eyes.
Those same people who can't afford insurance because they bought plasma tv's on credit = good in bombers eyes.
GRIN - Ahhh Scott, I'm glad you have joined the debate. Mr Magoo bailout not moral hazard, the 10 000 uninsured is a moral hazard huh? Hilarious stuff. I had no idea Scott that there were zero renters in Christchurch.
Yet they can afford to buy a house?
Fuck the SCF investors, and fuck the uninsured.
Edit. Too right sdm.
This is the middle class that you criticise so much for living on easy credit that you want to bail out bomber.
Buying a plasma tv on credit = bad in bombers eyes.
Those same people who can't afford insurance because they bought plasma tv's on credit = good in bombers eyes.
LMFAO - wow that is a lot of coffee for 8.40am there brave anonymous poster, quick mate put the boot into those quake survivors. Don't you think that if you are going to denigrate people who have survived the worst natural disaster in 80 years you should at least have the balls to put your name to your comment brave anonymous poster?
Yes, that's right folks - anon and scott both believe that there were no renters or poor people in Christchurch amongst the 10 000 uninsured. Look guys, you have to work a lot better at your apologist Government spin lines, the ones you've used are crappy and weak.
Whilst I am not about to get as 'rabid' as some of the previous posts and I am certainly no fan of the 'rudderless' government there has to be a degree of personal responsibility here.
If you rent then you do owe it to yourself to get some degree of insurance - or maybe those who had no insurance had nothing to insure anyway - being 'poor?'
I came from very humble beginnings but one thing I do remember was my father always found the money for insurances - we just went without a TV.
Hopefully the govt will be shamed into stepping up on this one ...
What is the point of insurance again as I believe Mr Bradbury has forgotten?
"If the Government are going to start bailing out rich investor mates from failed greedy investment companies, I might start buying shares."
Really where is the proof that the rich invest in SCF?
If you were investing in their junk bonds you'd do so because you needed to the yield to support your income - to live which is why people took the risk in the first place.
Your kind of analysis doesn't stand well under scrutiny.
What is the point of insurance again as I believe Mr Bradbury has forgotten?
What is the point of being paid higher rates of return for risk? I believe Gosman has forgotten, which is funny being that Gosman works at a bank.
Really where is the proof that the rich invest in SCF?
Why everyone's favourite right wing Girl Friend Cactus Kate tells us so. She is very clear that it is a political decision pushed along by wealthy political contacts. Her withering posts on the SCF bailout should be compulsory reading for you types I would have thought Anon? Did you see Campbell Live and the manner SCF bet once the guarantee was in place? Did you see the Armstrong post talking about the wealthy who jumped on board?
When will people learn, same sob story after the bush fires in Australia, same story in the floods here now.
Same in the big floods in the North Island a few years ago.
People do what works, not paying insurance works, they 'know' they will be bailed out so it re-enforces the idea that insurance is unimportant.
How about the government going to the people who have paid their insurance for the last 20 years (and more) and give us a refund so we can have a holiday. Actually I would probably go without the holiday and pay it off the mortgage, I have this silly habit of thinking farther ahead than next week.
This reminds me a bit of the guy who broke into the vets and took his dog because he was to ‘poor’ to pay the vet bill. He wanted a dog, I daresay he saw it as his ‘right’, he was just a poor victim, how cruel to expect him to pay (most vets do actually let people pay off their bills) but the fact is don’t get things unless you are pretty sure you can afford them, grow up, think it through for gods sake.
The idea of going without things (no matter how much you want them) because you can’t afford them is a totally alien idea to many people, no-one asks ‘can you afford that’.
People bang out kids they can’t afford .... on and on it goes .... and on and on the convenient excuses go, I notice the excuses are very selective, you have to fit the profile of a selected group to be eligible for excuses.
LMFAO - have you got that all out of your system Anon? Listen to the moralizing, listen to the howls of C&R- esk outrage - and yet for such strident views you are still afraid to post a name to your opinions? Now where is one word of the same moral panic over the $1.6billion National handed over to Mr Magoo.
NOT
ONE
WORD.
I notice the excuses are very selective, you have to fit the profile of a selected group to be eligible for excuses.
I think we all just noticed how very selective YOUR view is anon.
10 000 uninsured fellow NZers deserve at least what National were prepared to do for Mr Magoo and his well connected chums.
I am not going to defend the government on SCF. I got a real problem with the effective removal of risk by the taxpayer. Like I get the need for a guarantee in 2008, but the problem with the likes of SCF was always going to be that they would shift their focus to higher risk funding, which has backfired spectacularily.
And now we foot the bill.
"I had no idea Scott that there were zero renters in Christchurch"
So they cant afford it. Bullshit. You can get $20K worth of contents insurance for less than $6 a week. Of course its affordable - they chose not to, but want the taxpayer to pay to replace their broken tv.
How about they use the SCF "subsidy" to pay for the damage for chch! Govt pricks!
sdm: So they cant afford it. Bullshit. You can get $20K worth of contents insurance for less than $6 a week....
That's not relevant. The issue is that there are some people without insurance who have big replacement costs. Maybe some of them are in that situation because they are poor, others are in that situation because they are stupid, or just badly organised. It doesn't really matter. The issue is what we as a society do to help those who are stuffed now. It's not about assigning blame for why these people need extra help, or denying assistance because these people lack the "virtues" that you would like them to have.
If there is "moral hazard" here, it is in the existence of insurance companies at all. Insurance companies (and therefore, the uninsured) are really a method for "deciding" that a certain group of people will not be assisted. This just shows that the more moral solution would be that instead of insurance companies we (our society) should invest in some sort of no-fault fund that paid out in disaster; kind of like a property version of ACC.
thank you richard, for the breath of fresh air, people are in need at the moment. people, real living beings with a soul.
please lets not all disappear up our backsides, lubricated by our strongly held opinions.
you all seem to be reasonably intelligent, try spending some of this anxious energy thinking of ways we can help these people.(fellow folk in the shaky isles)
cheers!
The difference between China and NZ seems to be that China is actively working to increase the standard of living of its citizens.
Quite the opposite here.
Results eg. China is building bullet trains - We get an imaginary cycle track.
"Results eg. China is building bullet trains - We get an imaginary cycle track."
We do get ancient broken trainsets that were sold to us on a highly inflated price.
Post a Comment
<< Home