Whale gets a scalp

September 24th, 2011 at 10:59 am by David Farrar

I understand that the Green Party have de-selected their candidate, after the controversy over the Waikato Times article where his partner said she was a swinging voter who had decided to support the , without revealing her partner was the local Green candidate.

Tags: ,

67 Responses to “Whale gets a scalp”

  1. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Wow, I really didin’t expect them to take the issue seriously. I thought they would just take toad’s line and make weak excuses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. scrubone (3,095 comments) says:

    Good on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brad (75 comments) says:

    I guess you have plenty of time to do target political opponents, bag beneficiaries etc etc, when you yourself are sitting at home collecting a benefit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Michael (904 comments) says:

    A lesson for all activists. Don’t do stupid stuff that will piss off Whale Oil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jadis (146 comments) says:

    Official line is that Max stood down. Interesting that the local Greens spokesman (Mark Servian) is fronting it and not Turei or Norman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Griff (7,516 comments) says:

    Brad

    If that was true why don’t the watermelons do far better at target political opponents

    One hint. Idiots

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “I guess you have plenty of time to do target political opponents, bag beneficiaries etc etc, when you yourself are sitting at home collecting a benefit”

    Bitter much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Thown under the bus by the nasty party… and here’s me running low on popcorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    This is largely symbolic/face saving/principle promoting, he wasn’t on the Green list so it will make little real difference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Elaycee (4,374 comments) says:

    Good on them? Hardly….

    The Gweens had no option but to cull this moron. They had been forced into a corner because of these actions – after all, it was a patsy article based on lies spouted by both the partner and repeated via Twitter by the candidate.

    They couldn’t continue to hold the line demonstrated by the likes of ‘toad’ (hands over both ears whilst repeating “I can’t hear you”).

    This issue has done us all a favour because it has outed the Gweens for what they are – media manipulators who resort to bluster and bullshit to try and push their message. The only difference on this occasion is that they were outed by Whale and only did a 180 degree turn when the heat got too hot for them to handle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Elaycee (4,374 comments) says:

    Brad (3) – September 24th, 2011 at 11:06 am.

    Part of the Gween’s orchestrated response team, by chance?

    Haha :P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Manolo (13,579 comments) says:

    The scalp of this loser is irrelevant and not to be counted. Flaky Luddites do not matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. tvb (4,363 comments) says:

    The greens have generally played politics pretty straight, whereas the labour party does not. Ultimately the greens wish to supplant labour. This is quite evident in Australia, where corrupt union officials are damaging the labour brand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inventory2 (10,298 comments) says:

    In the meantime, I bet Trevor Mallard’s sphincter quivers as he awaits the bailiff turning up with the defamation writ; makes Max Dillon Coyle’s indiscretion seem like small beer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. kiwi in america (2,428 comments) says:

    The Greens are desperate to supplant Labour as the opposition. They see the Holy Grail of 10% within their grasp and so they are adopting more of Labour’s bare knuckle approach to political management. Labour have used manipulative astro turfing tactics for years (heck I set up a number in my Labour activist days in the late 80’s/early 90’s). The Greens had a secret weapon and that was media adulation and a comparitive lack of their scrutiny. Clark used to be the benefactor of soft wooley socialist group think among journalists but as the media gets younger, more facile and lazy and Labour’s front bench gets more grumpy and fossilized, the Greens have become the sexy cause celebre amongst younger reporters. A higher percentage of journos are greenies now and, like their older Labour supporting colleages before them, they aren’t going to cause discomfort to their fellow political travellers unless the story is too compelling to ignore.

    These two trends intersected to produce this Waikato Times astro turf.

    There is a final point to bear in mind. The Greens are lefties and in the left’s world, the ends always justifies the means – that is how Labour supporters kept a straight face defending the EFA and the Pledge card rort – because any tactic to defeat the Tories was OK in the end. Many in the Greens (like toad – “nothing to see here – move along”) see no real problem with any tactic that bolsters their vote and defeats the right because in the end, the Greens would argue the country benefits from the implimentation of their class warfare policies. You only have to look at the professional astro turing and media manipulation undertaken by Greenpeace for decades to see where Green politicians learned this stuff.

    Now they’ve been caught with their pants well and truly down and the Green campaign team and brains trust want to shut down the horrible optics on this asap and get back to climate scaremongering with minimal media scrutiny without delay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,579 comments) says:

    A higher percentage of journos are greenies now and, like their older Labour supporting colleages before them, they aren’t going to cause discomfort to their fellow political travellers unless the story is too compelling to ignore.

    Right on the money. Well said, KIA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,887 comments) says:

    KIA

    There is a final point to bear in mind. The Greens are lefties and in the left’s world, the ends always justifies the means – that is how Labour supporters kept a straight face defending the EFA and the Pledge card rort – because any tactic to defeat the Tories was OK in the end. Many in the Greens (like toad – “nothing to see here – move along”) see no real problem with any tactic that bolsters their vote and defeats the right because in the end, the Greens would argue the country benefits from the implimentation of their class warfare policies.

    For a few moments I thought you were describing the modus operandi of militant Islamists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    The greens have generally played politics pretty straight, whereas the labour party does not.

    No tvb, quite wrong. As per KIA above, the Gweens do anything “for the cause.”

    This makes it OK for nice people to do bad things, in their eyes. It’s for the enviwonment or the poor people or to fight wacism, you see. The Gweens and in fact all lefties universally hold to the profoundly mistaken belief that the world works by oppwession. That poor people wouldn’t be poor if they weren’t oppwessed. That most white people are wacist no matter what they say and do, they are inhewently wacist. That the eviwonment is being waped by evil opwessors who just want to enrich themselves alone at the expense of a common wesource, the pwecious planet, and we only have the one, they think to themselves.

    Such a view is as I say, universal and the sad part is, it’s totally fucking wrong in every way. But lefties can’t accept that poor people actually are in fact responsible for their own outcomes in exactly the same way that rich people and you and I are responsible for our own outcomes for that is how life works. You see if they were to accept that their whole raison d’etre vanishs and all of a sudden, the way to help people is to educate them and not to defend them. And we can’t have that can we for then where are the poor and downtwodden victims that they can help? There aren’t any, under that regime, and this is why lefties can’t and will never accept the accurate and correct and true perspective on how in fact, life actually truly works.

    Disgusting creatures, aren’t they. All of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,887 comments) says:

    It’s quite remarkable that The Greens appear to be well organised and disciplined while Labour runs around aimlessly like a mob of meat ants watching the river rise before inundating their nest. This fool in Hamilton was threatening their new persona of a more sensible and more widely acceptable party and so, in Whale’s immortal words, they ‘cut his throat and threw him out the back door’, quick smart.

    What you are seeing is merely the emergence of the Greens as the second most dominant party in New Zealand politics. It’s happening before your eyes but most of you have not yet woken up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘But lefties can’t accept that poor people actually are in fact responsible for their own outcomes in exactly the same way that rich people and you and I are responsible for our own outcomes for that is how life works.’

    If only that were true reid. If only the baby in Pomare actually had the same chances for a good outcome as the baby in Karori.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. burt (8,236 comments) says:

    The Greens and Labour sharing 40% of parliament (20% each) would be awesome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    You’re possibly right Adolf. Next term we’re likely to see a single tier 1 party, two tier 2 parties (one strengthening and the other either trying to recover or continuing to disintegrate) and several tier 3 parties.

    It may already be too late for Labour to “get it” and do what’s necessary to rescue themselves, but all indications are they won’t change their approach at least until after the election. By the look of the open faction positioning now that may be less pretty than we’ve already seen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    mm it’s not about chances arising in any given circumstanse it’s about the opportunity for chances to arise. The fact the baby in Pomare is not taught by his or her parents that he or she does in fact have exactly the same career opportunities as the baby in Karori is his or her parent’s fault. It is. It may not be intentional on the part of those parents, but it is their fault for not telling their baby they can in fact become a lawyer, a politician, a corporate manager, a consultant, an engineer or whatever it is that the baby in Karori actually ends up becoming.

    In NZ, education to tertiary level is free and then loans are available to both those babies if they wish to take it further. The fact the baby in Pomare probably won’t ever avail themselves of those opportunities does not mean they do not exist, and that’s the point I made above about education.

    The first thing we have to do as a society IF we want to eliminate poverty, is first educate lefties and secondly educate the poor people, that these opportunities exist and are real and all you have to do if you have a baby and you live in Pomare, is stop fucking drinking, swearing, hanging out with your mates at the pub while the kids sit at home alone or in the car, etc etc etc. And once you stop doing all of that, then you need to start teaching yourself how to read, write and do arithmetic for if you don’t understand it yourself how the fuck are you going to know if your kid is doing well in school or not? And how the fuck are you going to get a promotion at work, if you keep turning up late with a hangover or cause you’re in jail cos the cops had ta stop ya smashing some fulla for giving lip to the missus, eh. Get the picture, mm?

    Notice all of this, every single bit of it, is entirely free and immediately available right here right now, both in Pomare and Karori and anywhere else in the world where poverty exists. All you have to do, is to do it. And that my friend is the only repeat only difference between the baby in Pomare and the baby in Karori. The baby in Karori’s parents started behaving exactly as I outlined, probably a few generations ago now, and once that first generation did it, the rest of the generations have never looked back.

    Tell me this is not how life works, mm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Reid is right, in NZ opportunity is not limited by where you live, it’s limited by who you associate with and/or what behaviour you choose. Being assoctaied with dead beat parents (or parent) is a disadvantage but the opportunity is nearly always there to rise above that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Easy then, the Pomare parents just have to be like the Karori parents and everything will be fine. If they’re not, the outcome for the child is their fault and we need not be concerned. Simple really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Chris R (70 comments) says:

    Well said Reid. But, remember that education isn’t free, we as taxpayers pay for it!
    Milk, you are a misery manufacturer. The truth is we can all lift our heads higher than any gutter if we choose. To do so simply requires breadth of imagination, energy and direction. (These attributes ARE free!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    mikenmild and the greens seek to remove the influence and contribution that we each have on the generation that follows us. This can’t ever be done nor should be attempted as our stories begin long before our births and continue long after our deaths.

    Vive la difference of the parents of the families from Karori and Pomare who almost certainly were not themselves from those same places. We all make our way along the road of progress at different moments and speeds, but thankfully for now we still have that direction to choose and not just the road to serfdom of mikenmilds utopia of individualism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Plenty of people are born into conditions of poverty and hardship and still rise above their circumstances. Blaming one’s circumstances for one’s own failure is just excuse-mongering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Simple really.

    Indeed it is, mm. Simple in concept, difficult in practice for it involves firstly a 180 degree change in thinking for about 40-50% of the population and secondly a massive army of resources to teach the poor people how to become responsible, self-disciplined and finally, wise.

    That’s not a trivial task but it is the only way to defeat poverty and it stikes me if lefties were really serious about tackling it as they say they are, they would not completely this argument I am making which is a drop dead obvious analysis based on plain and open facts about life and society. But they never even talk about it.

    It is a shameful fact that conservatives never push it either. Occasionally they do but the hysteria from the evil lefties who know all of this plays havoc on the useful idiot lefties who think it’s all about the meany-victim syndrome and how can you victimise the poor and downtwodden and they just shut up about it again, for another decade or so. Fuck I wish they’d just call it for the elephant in the room it really is, because it’s a simple equation and if you say it long enough and loud enough even the absolute thickest lefty would finally, fucking finally get it, and the only ones left would be the evil ones who always knew it and just pushed the line since it gave them a plush cushy wicket at society’s expense, who would be left shouting loudly in a completely empty building.

    Now how can anyone argue that society wouldn’t be better off if that actually happened, mm?

    So would it be simple? Of course not. Does that make it impossible? No. Is it worthwhile? I dunno. Eliminating poverty and the victimhood mentality from society and the way we would be as a nation if that were real today? How much would that be worth, long term?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It’s certainly true that many people rise above their background, just as some chuck away their advantages.

    I think you are closer to the mark reid when you talk about ‘a massive army of resources’ required to make a difference. I can’t see that happening though, certainly not while there is still a strong streak of ‘iff so and so got off his bum and succeeded anyone can’.

    A focus on improving things for the bottom 20% of children would not be cheap or easy, but would easily pay for itself over time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    a 180 degree change in thinking for about 40-50% of the population and secondly a massive army of resources to teach the poor people how to become responsible, self-disciplined and finally, wise.

    This is easy. A lack of money did it for my family.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “That’s not a trivial task but it is the only way to defeat poverty and it stikes me if lefties were really serious about tackling it as they say they are,”

    Their not. If the poor did not exist the Left would have no reason to either. Thats why the welfare system was created. To ensure a permanent underclass who’s resentment can be stoked by the Left and who can then bribe the poor with more welfare.

    The welfare state is a vote buying scam, and the Left will never seriously do anything about poverty for that reason. Thats why nothing changed despite nine years of Labour throwing money at the welfare bureaucracy. It was not meant to change anything. When people began noticing this Clark claimed that in fact there was no poverty anymore because she had got rid of it! When kids were still turning up to school hungry despite Labour’s spending binge that vile and blubbery waste of space Parakura Horomia claimed the kids were just dieting!

    You cannot solve poverty by throwing money at a broken system, which is what mm wants to do. Its a structural problem that can only be changed with a radical change in the focus and structure of the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    A focus on improving things for the bottom 20% of children would not be cheap or easy, but would easily pay for itself over time.

    Not in the way you’re thinking as your type always tends to start in the middle. Todays bottom 20% are there as a result of the attempts of people like you to help them.

    They are the spawn of 70 years of our socialised education, socialised medicine, minimum wage, social welfare society.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Thats why the welfare system was created. To ensure a permanent underclass who’s resentment can be stoked by the Left and who can then bribe the poor with more welfare.

    I don’t believe that. Sounds like another great conspiracy theory, a bit like the one that claims that capitalism deliberately maintains an underclass to exploit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Obviously not intentionaly to begin with Pete, but anyone who continues with the experiment with the history of its results plain to see, is willfully dehumanizing and oppressing the poor of modern societies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Sonny – socialists or capilalists?

    The correct answer is some of both.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Pete George (11,232) Says:
    September 24th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
    Sonny – socialists or capilalists?

    The correct answer is some of both.

    No its not. You must ask compared to what?

    I would hope that people going into politics would have some knowledge of this.

    If you haven’t already you should at least watch this ad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk

    And have watched Milton Friedmans ‘Free to choose’ series:

    http://www.freetochoose.tv/

    And have read Friedrech Hayeks ‘Road to Serfdom’

    http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-2-ebook/dp/B0048EJXCK/ref=ntt_at_ep_edition_2_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    They are the spawn of 70 years of our socialised education, socialised medicine, minimum wage, social welfare society.

    Sonny for me, the root cause is consumerism. We are shaped now by the fact that we “need” so many things it takes two good incomes simply to maintain.

    Secondly our society is unequal, to the extent of the dis-proportionate influence that financial institutions wreck upon us, which keeps all of us in significant debt for much of our lives, one way or the other.

    Neither of these factors to me, is a sign a healthy society. We can’t as a nation do much about either, either. For we are part of a global system. And it is benign, don’t get me wrong, it’s just not just, that’s all. But it’s not unjust, it’s neutral, and I personally think it could be positive, not just neutral, by ridding itself of the influence of global finance which constitutes a massive part of the global economy, far far more than commodities – you know – real stuff. That would prevent the boom and bust cycles, of which we currently experience the sharpening end.

    Secondly consumerism attacks our basic humanity by supplanting our natural affection and altruism with objects. Freud’s nephew founded the PR industry in NY which started consumerism, corporations wanting to sell more product which spawned Madison Avenue and which today has morphed into the execrable power of the corporate lobbyists which you see best in the States with their politics in various areas ending up being totally counter-productive to the people but excellent for the PAC which just deposited several hundred thousand into the Senator’s re-election campaign fund, not to mention the drug lobby which is affecting our very own TPP and the defence lobby which does such a good job supplying those same politicians with lots and lots of very pointy things indeed.

    On top of all of this the MSM has left the building as far as truth and rational thinking goes and ignores all of these unpleasantries in favour of lots of stuff which supports their circulation because that’s what’s important, the news is simply the wrap for the real “product” which is the advertising therefore let’s not be controversial or boring by bringing people weally sewious stuff cos that would make them all fwowny-faced so no, let’s not do that. Instead, let’s give them lots of exciting celeb happenings so they can laugh and sing and clap their widdle hands in giggly joy and that way we can slip in even more ads for useless crap.

    On top of the top of all of this you’ve got a major political thought-stream constantly saying at a global level, people are victims. The only people who aren’t victims apparently these days, are white males. This is because white males apparently did everything bad to everyone on a global basis for thousands and thousands of years and this is why we have so many victims who are understandably angry and demand just redress: you name it, white males have done it: poor African slaves, women in general, Muslims, Christians who didn’t say quite the right thing to the Spanish at one point, and on and on and on. Therefore it’s not surprising says today’s history on this topic, that we live today in an unequal society, with white males at the top.

    This to me, possibly because I’m a white male, isn’t a very helpful interpretation of how life could be made into being the best it can possibly be for other people. The interesting question is, those dynamics above are also run by white males. White males dominate global politics, global finance and the media. They control the message. So why are white males blaming everything on white males?

    I might point out that while I agree and have said many times that nothing is more vigorously defended than a vested interest disguised as an intellectual conviction and that one might well think that I as a white male, do indeed have a strong vested interest, I also observe that just cause I do have said vested interest that doesn’t automatically mean I’m operating on that vein. If the world didn’t have those maleovolent influences in politics, finance and media the world would be a much much better place. That’s a fact. It’s also a fact that unfortunately, those maleovolent influences are real and show no sign of doing anything but grow in strength.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “socialists or capilalists? The correct answer is some of both.”

    Well on this we agree. Both corporate capitalism and state socialism are equally part of the problem. We need a serious and viable alternative to both – Distributism.

    “According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

    The Distributist Review: http://distributistreview.com/mag/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    The concentration of capital by a few is usually a sign of government influence.

    Also you have made the usual mistake in this discussion. We were talking about the circumstances of the poor and now you are talking about the circumstances of the rich.

    Socialists tend to be very concerned about how the rich live, and will prioritise bringing them down over bringing the poor up.

    I don’t care how rich the rich are, I care about where the average is and the lot of the poor.

    What you seem to refer to is a name change for socialism after the embarassment of 70 years of failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,476 comments) says:

    Distributism (also known as distributionism, distributivism) is a third-way economic philosophy formulated by such Catholic thinkers as G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc to apply the principles of Catholic social teaching articulated by the Catholic Church, especially in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum and more expansively explained by Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.

    I’m sure it will have some merits but the world will never work on a single ism. Impossible to change a complex system to one theory, and it will have it’s own shortcomings and abuses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Nigel Kearney (982 comments) says:

    There’s no way they deselected him because of that.

    Either he has done something more serious that we don’t know about, or the leadership never liked him and have grabbed an excuse to override the wishes of the members.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Pete,

    “I’m sure it will have some merits but the world will never work on a single ism.”

    It already is, just the wrong one.

    “Impossible to change a complex system to one theory”

    Again, already done. The neo-liberal reforms of the 80’s and 90’s did just that.

    You cannot just have a hodge podge mix of this and that, it won’t solve anything and just lead to an even greater mess.

    Sonny,

    “The concentration of capital by a few is usually a sign of government influence.”

    This claim, often made by proponents of libertarian economics, does not stand up to close scrutiny. History says otherwise, as a little research shows.

    “What you seem to refer to is a name change for socialism after the embarassment of 70 years of failure.”

    No. Distributism is a modern name for an ancient system that existed in Europe prior to the industrial revolution. It’s modern formulation by G.K Chesterton was well before the 70’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    I’m sure it will have some merits but the world will never work on a single ism. Impossible to change a complex system to one theory, and it will have it’s own shortcomings and abuses.

    Pathetic.

    It can be boiled down to one concept, liberty (but not with the conclusions some libertarians reach).

    Unfortunately there are no sidelines for life, and if you don’t know what you are trying to achieve then someone who does will achieve their ends.

    Capitalism has been a brief moment of enlightenment in human history, if we do not know its value we will lose it and revert back to our usual state of tyranny and oppression.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    “According to distributism, the ownership of the means of production should be spread as widely as possible among the general populace, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism) or a few large businesses or wealthy private individuals (plutarchic capitalism). A summary of distributism is found in Chesterton’s statement: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.””

    Lee with respect this sounds like crap to me. Anything which interferes with free movement of capital cannot succeed. Capital follows profit which arises from demand so capital is par excellence the best mediation mechanism and must be unfetterred.

    What is wrong is speculation on capital through derivatives, futures and arbitrage. It’s not necessary to do that in order for the system to function efficiently yet it is permitted nay encouraged because of the vast vast vast and ongoing profits which over time have generated through political donations a.k.a. leverage, favourable legislative regimes to the detriment of the efficient functioning of the market but to the vast benefit to themselves. Indeed, you may have noticed we’re in the middle right now of such a one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    No. Distributism is a modern name for an ancient system that existed in Europe prior to the industrial revolution. It’s modern formulation by G.K Chesterton was well before the 70′s.

    Oh please can we go back to Europe before the industrial revolution, I can’t wait.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Anything which interferes with free movement of capital cannot succeed.”

    Why?

    “Capital follows profit which arises from demand so capital is par excellence the best mediation mechanism and must be unfetterred.”

    Regardless of the destruction it creates?

    Let me give an example. Right now our current economy requires most married couples who are not amongst the upper echelons of the rich to both work in order to make ends meet. This means they have to farm out the care of their children to stangers, and spend most of their time working just to pay bills. This results in stress and strain on the family, and weakens the bonds beteen parents and children, resulting in even more problems.

    Exactly how, for this couple and the millions like them, does this translate as “Liberty”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Let give an example. Right now our current economy requires most married couples who are not amongst the upper echelons of the rich to both work in order to make ends meet. This means they have to farm out the care of their children to stangers, and spend most of their time working just to pay bills. This results in stress and strain on the family, and weakens the bonds beteen parents and children, resulting in even more problems.

    Ha ha.

    No it doesn’t, they choose to.

    You can raise a family and live quite well whilst never getting off the minimum wage.

    A couple can find a place to rent for $150 for both of them (a price artificially inflated by central control of the housing market)

    They can feed themselves for $300 pw and expenses of around $100.

    50 hours each at $13 is $1300pw after tax $1000 pw

    Income = $1000 pw
    Outgoings = $600 pw

    Save the difference from age 15 to 30 = 15×50 weeks = 750 weeks x $400 = $300,000 in the bank earning interest.

    Very easy for a parent to quit working to raise a child with $300,000 in the bank. Fuck, I think we even call that capital.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Manolo (13,579 comments) says:

    Oh please can we go back to Europe before the industrial revolution, I can’t wait.

    Yes, just cast your vote for the Luddites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Have to go shortly as I’m helping to set ou our commen room for the rugby tonight. We project it on to a large white wall, so its almost like watching a movie theater.

    I have noticed in other forums that Distributists sound like left wingers to the Right, and like right wingers to the Left. This is because we agree with the right about the evils of big government and welfare socilaism. But we also agree with the left about big corporations and big money (international finance). BOTH are a threat to genuine liberty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Regardless of the destruction it creates?

    Lee it’s not capital movement that creates destruction it’s usury. If money wasn’t so expensive globally world trade would be more efficient. The reason it’s expensive is largely artificial since its caused by the need to meet all of those margin calls on the negative trades one made on the speculative markets. There is a reason for these markets and they need to exist, but they generate zero material benefit apart from to the individuals who’ve happened to have won that particular day. That’s it. Nothing else. And the result of all this activity is wealth accumulation without production.

    If that’s not counter-productive then I’m not quite sure what is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Lee it’s not capital movement that creates destruction it’s usury.”

    Yes, well we agree on that. Distributists are very much against usury. Also, like the Austrian School of free market thinking Distributists want a return to honest coinage and the gold standard.

    Have a good rugby night all!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    If money wasn’t so expensive globally world trade would be more efficient. The reason it’s expensive is largely artificial since its caused by the need to meet all of those margin calls on the negative trades one made on the speculative markets…etc

    Sorry but nothing in that post made the slightest sense whatsoever. I mean nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Sorry but nothing in that post made the slightest sense whatsoever. I mean nothing.

    wat it’s a bit hard to rebut something if nothing exists to rebut.

    Which part would you like me to clarify?

    Do you know the ratio of financial trade to commodity trade per world GDP? It’s frightening and wrong. Look it up, using any source you like. I won’t bother providing a link since the exact percentage is not my point. My point is the size of the ratio, which is a bad thing, since its completely 100% non-productive but to the profit takers and solely to the profit takers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. DJP6-25 (1,376 comments) says:

    Congratulations to Whale. The internet is an invaluable tool when it comes to showing the left in their true colors.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Rat (383 comments) says:

    With respect Sonny @ 2.56.

    At $150.00 per week for rent, do you expect them to bunk in Dimebags garage ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Rat (383 comments) says:

    Again Sonny
    You are probably right

    Here are the current rentals for $150.00.

    http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx?search=1&mcat=0350-5748-&sidebar=1&132=FLAT&134=&153=&29=&122=0&122=0&59=15000&59=15000&178=0&178=0&sidebarSearch_keypresses=0&sidebarSearch_suggested=0

    The bedroom for the parents, the lounge floor for the kids (providing the flatmates dont object).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Other_Andy (2,610 comments) says:

    @Rat
    They can always dip in the taxpayers pocket for more money and apply for an Accommodation Supplement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    reaid,

    if money wasn’t so expensive globally world trade would be more efficient.

    Interest rates globally are at record lows, and in places real rates are negative. This is the complete opposite of your basic premise. As for supposing that higher interest rates somehow introduce inefficiencies for world trade, well, it’s not true. How could it? It might stifle growth, but that’s not the same thing as trade.

    The reason it’s expensive is largely artificial since its caused by the need to meet all of those margin calls…

    Completely meaningless.

    …on the negative trades…

    Again…

    …There is a reason for these markets and they need to exist, but they generate zero material benefit apart from to the individuals who’ve happened to have won that particular day. That’s it. Nothing else. And the result of all this activity is wealth accumulation without production.

    Well, ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself (“There is a reason for these markets”) you seem to be suggesting that insurance and futures markets provide “zero material benefit” generally. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Rat (20) Says:
    September 24th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
    Again Sonny
    You are probably right

    Here are the current rentals for $150.00.

    The bedroom for the parents, the lounge floor for the kids (providing the flatmates dont object).

    That is while they save before they have kids.

    You know, the rational, responsible way to go about it. I assume a couple can happily share a room in a flat which go down to $80 if they really want to make choices to get ahead.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Well, ignoring the fact that you contradict yourself (“There is a reason for these markets”) you seem to be suggesting that insurance and futures markets provide “zero material benefit” generally.

    No, no contradiction wat. The markets need to provide forward cover but that shouldn’t be the end in itself, that’s the central point. And these days, that and only that in terms of speculation provides the overwhelming daily trading volume and that benefits no-one in terms of productivity. It’s quite simple. It’s a circle. It doesn’t produce a single product, in any way. All it does is provide a speculative environment. Now why is this a good thing, is my question.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. wreck1080 (3,883 comments) says:

    He he, dpf, ever claimed a scalp?

    The whale is rising.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    reid,

    And these days, that and only that in terms of speculation provides the overwhelming daily trading volume and that benefits no-one in terms of productivity.

    Where? What markets? Please specify. Then we can examine your wildly implausible claim that they have no social purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. reid (16,290 comments) says:

    Where? What markets? Please specify. Then we can examine your wildly implausible claim that they have no social purpose.

    Er….

    NY, Chicago, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai… et al…

    BTW, I’m not and never have nor would dream of claiming markets have no social purpose. I’m not quite sure which part of your imagination you plucked that fantasy from but rest assured, you’re deluded on this, wat.

    If you care to read a word of what I said you’ll see quite clearly I’m saying that while markets are necessary the way they are currently operated is not even not necessary it is in fact counter-productive.

    wat if you read into that that therefore reid is saying markets per se “have no social purpose” then I’m not quite sure how to reply since your logic completely escapes me. It would be good if you could clarify.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Bogusnews (473 comments) says:

    Interesting the way things come around.

    When Labour was in power, under Bill English I remember talk of Winston becoming the dominent opposition, especially with National at about 20 per cent.

    Never happened of course, and I can’t see it happening with the greens either. But it is certainly taking Labour a long time to understand why they were thrown out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. wat dabney (3,724 comments) says:

    reid,

    Perhaps it was when you wrote so emphatically that “they generate zero material benefit apart from to the individuals who’ve happened to have won that particular day. That’s it. Nothing else which suggested you were saying markets have no social value.

    As for which markets, it was not a geography question, I was asking what type of markets you have in mind.

    But again, you contradicted yourself saying “there is a reason” for them, and as we have seen your basic premise – that money is too expensive because of these markets – is not only nonsensical but plain wrong. So I’m thinking this is pointless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    Well, the Greens go up in my estimation for the de-selection. There used to be an ethic that if you fuck up, you fuck off. Its fallen into disuse in politics. Good to see the Greens bringing it back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.