The Stealth Privatization Agenda
I'm so sick of hearing about John Key's state house childhood. Key had welfare when it was gold plated, right now it's shit encrusted. He grew up in that rose glass tinted NZ of yore where milk was free and cows skipped to the abattoir. Using that position of cosy aproned Government generosity to justify crippling the current welfare state for the most vulnerable is not only intellectually bankrupt, it's immoral.
But as disgusting as the bennie bashing is, it is merely a veneer to distract public attention from the structural change that is quietly keeping all those lobbyists who have open access to Ministers so very busy. We are seeing what amounts to as the corporatization of welfare, just like prisons and just like National are planning to do with education by using the National Standards results as league tables to inject a false competition model into schools.
Key is charming his way through a stealth privatization agenda. On the one hand acknowledging that he is going to the election to boldly seek a mandate, but on the other hand, not actually specifying how deep that privatization agenda runs, and as such, he comes across as decisive without ever explaining to any of us what his decisiveness will actually mean.
We can not in good conscience match up the 100 000 solo mothers, mentally unwell, disabled and unemployed having to do with less while we can't find enough cash to throw at corporate welfare for Sky City, AMI. Warners, Mediaworks and South Canterbury Finance.
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
posted by Bomber @ 7:37 am
17 comments
17 Comments:
Ummmm... hasn't the government announced that they would only seek to sell up to 49 percent stake in some SOE's?
Isn't that specifying EXACTLY how deep their privatisation agenda is?
Gosman you must be a national supporter or work for them. Don't lobby on this blog, have you no shame. You won't find any supporters of that propoganda. Selling SOE's is a crime against every New Zealand and National are telling us nothing. They talk to the corporations who then dictate what the government does and who they need to tell or not as the case may be, that being keep the NZ public in the dark.
Key and English go on about putting through change to help NZers save and own more assets. A chance would be a fine thing however once they completely erode our employment laws, remove any sort of minimum wage regulation, dumb down our education facilities and ensure that a college education is for the elite and well connected or those who sell an organ, once they privatise our SOE's so that corporations can hike the price of power, water without regulation, once they allow our country to be owned by foreign corporations, disestablish and sell our hospitals, then they would have succeeded in making it IMPOSSIBLE for NZers have a good qulaity of life let alone own anything, or have savings.
Meanwhile these fat cat National politicians are sitting pretty in their safe MP seats on their huge salary and State Sector Superannuation schemes which have all the perks and plentiful contributions, add in all their perks that come with being MP's plus every other little insider trading scam they have hacked out whilst raping this country of any assets enjoying the life of riley weilding their wand or mace depending on who you are, like its a play and everyones an actor.
Wake up NZ, this government is out to shaft you and they don't give two hoots about the ramifications. Look at Chch if you need proof. Japan have built 27,000 temporary prefabricated houses since their earthquake, tsunami and nuclear fallout. Not that I'm supporting their nuclear energy because I don't but I have to point out their tenacity and commitment. We still have the Hotel Grand Chancellor standing dangerously in the middle of the Chch CBD.
Our government are chumps and the sooner most NZers realise this, the better we will all be come November, Vote this government out if you care about your children. National don't.
Old people are dying of hyperthermia, you better get used to that if they sell our power companies.
Finally, I didn't catch a government official on any of mainstream 6pm news segments last night, appalling. The National government do not care NZ.
Bomber I'm mad as hell and I'm sick of taking it.
"they would only seek to sell up to 49 percent stake in some SOE's?"
Yep, that's right. And what will we get for that? Oh, right, a nice cash injection. so they can PRETEND that everything is fine and dandy, hand out some more free shit to the masses (or more likely, the top 1%), and feel good about themselves. What you TOTALLY FAIL to address is that these SOEs will henceforth produce 49% LESS MONEY for NEW ZEALAND. That 49% of the profits eventually inevitably ends up going DIRECTLY OVERSEAS since that is where SOE stocks always end up being ultimately sold to. Further, this ONE OFF Government "revenue" from the SOE sale does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the STRUCTURAL DEFICIT the Government is running.
So what will this utterly corrupt government do next? Oh, I know! Sell the remaining 51% to keep extend and pretend going another few years, winning another election, but all the while permanently DECREASING REVENUE for future Governments, and thereby ENSURING SEVERE AUSTERITY down the road. This short-sighted mentality is going to RUIN New Zealand.
If you sense that I'm fucking angry, you are correct.
Kelzie, you are so right. I am shocked at the response from central govt to Chch’s latest trauma. Just mumble mumble, dreadful business, hearts go out to them, etc, but no sense of immediate CONCERN and ACTION from Wellington.
(By the way, it’s hypothermia, not hyperthermia which means too much heat. Chch should be so lucky.)
Funny how lefty fans of bloated Government and its out of control spending can't get their tiny heads around the fact there's no free lunch and someday we are going to have to pay something back for the bludger welfare state we are mired in...
James, can you please give us all one example, in history, anywhere in the world, of your small govt low tax wet dream actually succeeding.
Or are you just parroting what your "Fresh Water" economist woshiping economics professor has taught you is a nice idea?
Thing abou you right wingers, your a bit like the inquisition imprisoning Galileo, your gonna stick to your idea, not matter how badly it fails!
We are not in the trouble we're in because of give spending James and certainly not because we own a fee power companies that generate us income.
Where is that income going to come from James, I we have no tax, no assets, no jobs outside of dairy?
Where are the rights ideas? Oh, we can just keep trumpeting on about the free market and a small govt eh, cause it's got such a legacy of succss since Maggie and Ronald started rolling it out.
"What you TOTALLY FAIL to address is that these SOEs will henceforth produce 49% LESS MONEY for NEW ZEALAND. "
LOL!
I fail to address this because it is absolute rot and just goes to underline your complete ignorance of economic realities.
Where is your proof that even if these SOE's had 49% foreign ownership, (which is by no means certain), that the level of profit would be maintained and that the entire amount of this profit would be externalised?
I'm not even going to bother with Kelzie's emotional opinion based rant. If he or she is representative of much of hard left thinking then I don't think the right has much to concern itself with at this point in time.
" can you please give us all one example, in history, anywhere in the world, of your small govt low tax wet dream actually succeeding."
For James to actually answer this sensibly, (which I suspect you aren't bothered with a sensible answer as you are just using this as an argument point), he would first need to know what you mean by succeeding and also what you define as "small govt low tax wet dream".
To me success is based on the economic performance of a country compared to other countries, or even to it's own previous performance, over a period of years as oppossed to how it looks at a single moment in time. I'm only interested in economic activity as opposed to social indicators, which you may or may not be interested in.
You will also need to define which countries you believe have followed this "small govt low tax wet dream" and the reasons you feel they match whatever criteria you used. Otherwise you could define exactly what this criteria is.
Without this information this is just a pointless debating device your are using.
Show us then please Gosman an example of a SOCIETY which has benefited from your ideology.
Not a country with great GDP performance and an Oligarchy.
http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~stu/fair/gdp.html
I don't want an argument Gosman, I want you to show us an example of it working.
Are the majority of people in the countries which have persued your line of economic thinking better or worse off than they were - in real terms of equality, standard of living, level of incarceration etc etc - than they were prior to the golden age you've created.
p.s. Gosman, I do want a sensible answer. One that isn't grounded in faith.
I totally reject your measures as being politically biased.
Equality, as an example, does not necessarily mean a society is better off. Cubans are far more equal than Americans are yet there isn't many people risking their lives sailing in dangerously leaky boats leaving from Miami to get to Havanna now is there.
As for a country that is better off following some free market principles, you need to look no further than Zimbabwe. That country gave up their monetary sovereignty in 2008 and the economy has been growing ever since for the first time in almost a decade. Once the State didn't have the ability to spend money it didn't actually have it reduced it's ability to destroy the productive sector the way it was doing previously.
"Where is your proof that even if these SOE's had 49% foreign ownership, (which is by no means certain), that the level of profit would be maintained and that the entire amount of this profit would be externalised?"
Where's YOUR proof that it isn't? Oh right, you didn't provide any. Moving ANY NZ generated profit offshore whatsoever is logically a net negative. Selling SOEs to "balance" a structural deficit is clearly not a viable long term solution to the (growing) debt problem.
It's like a dairy farmer selling his cows to pay the farm's running costs or mortgage. How long do you think that genius strategy will last? I really could use a dose of your hopium.
"Equality, as an example, does not necessarily mean a society is better off."
Yet conversely, inequality means a society is worse off.
The right always trot out the extremes of Totalitarian Communism as an argument against a rational managed Capitalism. Do you think Soccer for instance would be a better game if it's rules were abolished, or would the opportunists and morally bankrupt use the advantage that lawlessness provided them to benefit the self.
The Scandanavian countries for instance are not risking their lives in boats trying to escape, neither are they bankrupt or have small Governments. Germany in it's internal policy, (as opposed to what it is inflicting on the countries it's bailing out) has Europe's strongest economy and strong social policy. South American Countries, having thrown out their American puppets and the associated ideologies are more equitable now than they were under America's influence and are also growing whilst becoming more equitable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/07/brazil-dilma-rousseff-poverty-eradication
'Plutarch, writing almost 2,000 years ago, told us that “an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”'
http://www.juancole.com/2010/09/hellegers-american-income-inequality-is-the-cause-of-our-crisis.html
Do you really want to hold Zimbabwe up as an example Gosman? I wouldn't point the finger at Castro or Stalin if you're prepared to pitch in with Mugabe.
"it reduced it's ability to destroy the productive sector the way it was doing previously."
How do you think the Hyper Capitalists have effected the productive sector in the USA as they have taken all of their factories to China and Vietnam and Thailand in pursuit of endless growth?
"Do you really want to hold Zimbabwe up as an example Gosman? I wouldn't point the finger at Castro or Stalin if you're prepared to pitch in with Mugabe."
Why do you think I want to pitch in with Mugabe? Zanu-PF under his leadership basically destroyed the productive base of Zimbabwe following hard left policies that you support.
For your information since 2008 the Minister of finance in Zimbabwe has been a member of the MDC movement. On top of that they were forced to abandon the Zimbabwe Dollar in 2008 as they had made their currency worthless by attempting to support their productive sector by printing currency.
Their monetary policy is now completely out of their hands and they can only spend as much money as they raise from external sources. As a result they have growth in the economy wheras before it was a continual decline.
Care to explain why this came about?
Gosman, my comments may be emotional and rightly so. I live here, I am a New Zealander who is speaking out against a government that is not governing our country effectively. It is seeking leadership and advice from a outside influences and putting their interests before it's own citizens and future generations. This government does not seek the input of the citizens and is passing laws without any public consultation. This is not democracy.
National is economically stunting the growth of NZ. National are short sighted and it's an approach they have used for many many years. Robert Muldoon stunted the Norman Kirk idea of superannuation for all by scullying it when he came into power. A really, how could someone like Robert Muldoon even dare to stand next to someone like Norman Kirk. Imagine where NZ might have been if National weren't such self servering bastards back then and now.
Milton Friedman economics does not work. Selling state owned assets is a dog on an idea that only the rich like because it keeps the benefits and $$$ within their own little community. It's an exclusive operating model that is never beneficial to anyone. Latin America can attest to that, it is full of a history of corruption and murder and oppression. Any country touched by it is conflicted, poor and always governed by outside influences to it's detriment.
Go on another blog that will buy you proganda Gosman because that is what it is. Go write into the Economist, they might buy it but I'm not. Go to 3 news, they'll buy it too, having just got off their horrendous tax bill for another year.
Gosman, my comments may be emotional and rightly so. I live here, I am a New Zealander who is speaking out against a government that is not governing our country effectively. It is seeking leadership and advice from a outside influences and putting their interests before it's own citizens and future generations. This government does not seek the input of the citizens and is passing laws without any public consultation. This is not democracy.
National is economically stunting the growth of NZ. National are short sighted and it's an approach they have used for many many years. Robert Muldoon stunted the Norman Kirk idea of superannuation for all by scullying it when he came into power. And really, how could someone like Robert Muldoon even dare to stand next to someone like Norman Kirk. Imagine where NZ might have been if National weren't such self servering bastards back then and now.
Milton Friedman economics does not work. Selling state owned assets is a dog on an idea that only the rich like because it keeps the benefits and $$$ within their own little community. It's an exclusive operating model that is never beneficial to anyone outside of the small 5% that benefit from it. Latin America can attest to that, because of inteference from outside influences and no-con politics, it has a history filled with murder, oppression and corruption. Any country touched by it is conflicted, poor and always governed by outside influences to it's detriment.
Everything National says is BS. There antics in the house attest to their lack of respect for NZ. John Key makes me cringe, little sycophant.
Go on another blog that will buy you proganda Gosman because that is what it is. Go write into the Economist, they might buy it but I'm not. Go to 3 news, they'll buy it too, having just got off their horrendous tax bill for another year.
The point you ignored in that post Gosman is that there are systems contrary to the extremes of neol-liberal capitalism that aren't Communist and are economically successful.
The belief that a system can manage and stabilize itself seems naive to me. It may be a good theory, but it's a theory that ignores the reality that the free market system isn't ever going to be truly free or insulated from the fact that there are powerful vested interests in the world. History consistently teaches us this.
Your utopian free market view that by just removing all barriers a beautiful synergy will emerge has been proven to have failed. You may hold Zimbabwe as an example of it's success, but I see your Zimbabwe and raise you America.
Power will always - by it's nature - want to increase it's influence, capital will always want to grow. So however free you may think you can make the system it will always be rigged unless society controls it.
Enter Democracy. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Only through true, participatory Democracy can society
hope to moderate these forces of power. I am not advocating Communism as you may have noticed, but equally, Capitalism and Consumerism - through very successful social engineering - has been inextricably linked in our thinking to Democracy. As Northern Europe teaches us, this is a convenient myth of those same vested interests. Democracy isn't about free individuals, it's about a free society, and your neo-liberalism is achieving the opposite to it's goals, it's undermining Democracy in favor of the market and the constant trickle up of capital to those few who inhabit the top 1% of society.
Do you believe Democracy is Communism Gosman?
Isn't it time for us all to acknowledge that neither ideology at it's extreme works and that in light of the reality that we live on a finite and increasingly strained planet, for all of our sakes and for the sakes of our progeny, we need new ideas.
@Kelzie, I don't agree with Gosman either, but there's not much point having a forum like this if there are a bunch of us patting each other on the backs agreeing with each other. Surely it's through debate that we can advance our ideas.
Post a Comment
<< Home