Greens dump printing money plan – for now!

June 19th, 2013 at 11:10 am by David Farrar

Vernon Small reports:

The have dumped their call for – or printing money – after it became an electoral liability for the party and a future Labour-led government.

Green co-leader Russel Norman yesterday confirmed the u-turn after Monday’s release of the joint Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana report into manufacturing left the policy out of the mix.

Prime Minister John Key and other Government ministers have latched on to the plan to ‘‘print money’’ to paint the Opposition as economically radical.

Norman said it was never Green policy but was included in a discussion paper, issued last October.

This suggests they were not advocating it. This is far from the reality. Russel Norman was constantly tweeting that we should be printing money, and providing examples of other countries that were doing so. There is no doubt that the Green’s proposed Finance Minister thinks we should be printing money. The only thing that has changed is they have agreed to stop talking about it in public.

But if a Labour/Green Government got into office, and couldn’t get the books to balance, what do you think is more likely – that they’ll cut spending or print money?

And enjoy Clark and Dawe as they explain what the Greens mean by quantitative easing!

Tags: , , ,

87 Responses to “Greens dump printing money plan – for now!”

  1. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘There is no doubt that the Green’s proposed Finance Minister thinks we should be printing money.’

    Either that or he’s come to his senses and cut the losses.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    Pre-election positioning. Labour and the Greens are clearly running as a single left wing bloc.

    Major policy differences are being removed in order to nullify a National, “You don’t know what you are going to get, they’ve got different polices; which will be implemented?” attack line at the next election.

    It makes sense from their point of view, for there to be a broad agreement on the platform for their administration as early as possible.

    I think it’s clear that the Greens aren’t going to get the finance portfolio unless they win 20 seats, which ain’t going to happen. I think the last election was their high water mark..

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    So without running a printing press 24/7 how are they going to pay for all the silly shit they propose?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. James Stephenson (2,153 comments) says:

    So without running a printing press 24/7 how are they going to pay for all the silly shit they propose?

    Can you feel that sharp pain in your wallet?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jacob (16 comments) says:

    “But if a Labour/Green Government got into office, and couldn’t get the books to balance, what do you think is more likely – that they’ll cut spending or print money?”
    They’d need to change the Reserve Bank Act first – that’s what it’s there for, to stop that kind of recklessness. We have it thanks to Robert Muldoon’s abuses

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “But if a Labour/Green Government got into office, and couldn’t get the books to balance, what do you think is more likely – that they’ll cut spending or print money?”

    Who really thinks that democratically elected governments get to make these decisions anyway ?

    The international bond markets will determine this decision with the price the country has to pay for debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (9,856 comments) says:

    So without printing money, will Dimes tax rate nudge 50%?

    Would that be my FAIR share? or higher?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross12 (1,410 comments) says:

    Norman is full of BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “So without printing money, will Dimes tax rate nudge 50%? ”

    It already does when you include GST, probably more when you factor indirect taxes like excise duty and council rates. I’d estimate close to 60% of my income goes to the state in some shape or fashion.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lance (2,635 comments) says:

    Greens/Labour will tax and borrow NZ to economic Nirvana whilst simultaneously spending like there is no tomorrow.

    No wonder the word ‘green’ is associated with naivety.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dime (9,856 comments) says:

    Alan – yeah i almost added + gst, petrol tax, fuck you youre rich levy, rates etc etc they just take take take

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    There is no doubt that the Green’s proposed Finance Minister thinks we should be printing money. The only thing that has changed is they have agreed to stop talking about it in public. But if a Labour/Green Government got into office, and couldn’t get the books to balance, what do you think is more likely – that they’ll cut spending or print money?

    This isn’t how Green policy-making occurs. Unlike other Parties, the Green Leadership or Caucus cannot just make up policy on the fly. In the Greens, proposed policies have to go through a consensus process involving membership consultation. This one hasn’t gone through that process, so while Russel may think it is a good idea (and I do too, if its purpose is restricted to things such as the Christchurch rebuild that have little inflationary impact), the reality is that it is not Green policy, never has been, and it seems from Russel’s announcement, now won’t be in the foreseeable future.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. anonymouse (710 comments) says:

    the Green Leadership or Caucus cannot just make up policy on the fly.

    What exactly was the party’s policy on the micro-chipping of dogs again,

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Simon (698 comments) says:

    21 years outside of govt and the greens come out with printing money. Losers.

    Greens are a relic from the 19th century. Greens should have a permanent display at MOTAT in the ideas that never worked section. There’s Wussel holding a bit of paper with his ideas about how to handle world population hitting 2 billion & peak steam.

    Crackpots.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    So policies being followed by those economic neophytes at the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England are “wacky”. As Krugman has pointed out, the worries about inflation are typically exaggerated and in those other countries the inflation has yet to appear.

    None of this is to say that QE is the right policy for NZ right now, but to label it as beyond the economic pale is just stupid. Mind you, we’re dealing with the morons in parliament and the moronic public, so it’s par for the course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,834 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson;

    Correct…

    Amputating a limb, in the field, without anaesthesia, can be the best choice of action… under some circumstances.

    You probably wouldn’t do it for a broken finger or a dry cracked cuticle though.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @anonymouse 11:55 am

    What exactly was the party’s policy on the micro-chipping of dogs again,

    There wasn’t one, which is why there was a split Green vote on that Bill in Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    ” Krugman has pointed out,”

    Thanks for the laff.

    http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kiwi in america (2,428 comments) says:

    toad
    Russell forgot to read the “Greens Consultative Kumbaya Policy Making” memo. He backed QE like the true believer he is pushing back in various forums against criticism. I will give the Greens some credit – someone in their office has a reasonably sensitive political antennae and knew the “printing money” line was toxic and it had to go. A public ‘U turn’ by Norman was ordered by Clint and the chooks (beltway speak for journalists) have/will buy it….don’t want anything to rain on the virginal Green’s parade to government.

    In fact this will be the beginning and many such ‘U turns’. As bloggers and a few inquisitive media begin to pick through the minutiae of the Greens various nutty policies (as David you are beginning to do), they will appear to ‘shelve’ anything too kooky and controversial (e.g. banning TV advertisements for naughty fatty food). The Greens have no intention of abandoning their policies – especially after all that consultation! They know best – the vast unwashed plebs of middle NZ have so many behaviours that the nanny state must alter – the Greens will proceed to use their power and influence in government to ban as many of the items on their naughty/ban list as possible:
    Fizzy drinks from schools
    Fuel inefficient vehicles
    Gaming machines in pubs
    The GCSB
    Companies that do not comply with a Code of Corporate Responsibility
    Commercial Genetic Engineering trials, field testing on production of GE food and the import of GE food
    Urban Sprawl
    Non citizens/residents from owning land
    Transport by sea of farm animals, for more than 24 hours
    Crates for sows
    Battery cages for hens
    Factory farming of animals
    Use of the ground-up remains of sheep and cows as stock feed
    Animal testing where animals suffer, even if of benefit to humans
    Docking of dogs tails
    Smacking
    Advertising during children’s programmes
    Alcohol advertising on TV and radio
    Coal mining
    Export of indigenous logs and chips
    New exploration, prospecting and mining on conservation land and reserves
    Sale of chips and lollies in school tuck shops
    Fixed electricity charges
    Further large hydro plants
    Further thermal generation
    Imported vehicles over seven years old
    Disposal of recyclable materials at landfills
    Export of hazardous waste to non OECD countries
    Advertising of unhealthy food until after 8.30 pm
    All food and drink advertisements on TV if they do not meet criteria for nutritious food
    Use of antibiotics as sprays on crops
    Food irradiation within NZ
    NZ from military treaties which are based on the right to self defense
    NZers from serving as mercenaries
    New casinos
    Cellphone towers within 300 metres of homes
    New buildings that do not confirm to sustainable building principles
    Migrants who do not undertake Treaty of Waitangi education programmes
    New prisons
    Genetic mixing between species
    Ocean mineral extractions within the EEZ
    Goods that do not meet quality and sustainability standards for goods which are produced and/or sold in Aotearoa/NZ
    New urban highways or motorways
    Private toll roads
    Landfills
    New houses without water saving measures
    Programmes on TVNZ with gratuitous violence

    If I’ve missed any – let me know!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kleva Kiwi (289 comments) says:

    You missed People KIA.
    Greens want to ban people…!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (876 comments) says:

    OK, now that the Finance Minister has dropped the money printing idea, expect (a) Earthquake Levy (b) Tax rises for rich pricks.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Griff (7,517 comments) says:

    Fluoride in water ,the use of irrigation,most modern farming techniques, freedom of speech, true Representative democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gump (1,635 comments) says:

    The Reserve Bank Act is one of the tools that the Baby Boomers are using to commit inter-generational theft from younger citizens.

    Low inflation rates are lovely if you’re a pensioner on a fixed income, but they greatly disadvantage young people who need to pay off debts for mortgages and education.

    The Greens are loonies. But there are good arguments to be made in favour of loosening the CPI inflation band that is enforced by the Reserve Bank Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    Gump- “inflation is a great idea.”

    What an imbecile.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. gump (1,635 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter

    Inflation is a great idea if you’re paying off debt.

    I am looking forward to my generation cutting your pension entitlements.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    “Inflation is a great idea if you’re paying off debt.”

    Yes, the reserve bank should just act according to the wishes of whatever any particular sector of society thinks might be a good idea at any given time. How braindead can you get?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    We now wait for the redGreens to roll back their policies of nationalising everything that moves, banning all development and taxing business into oblivion and the wealthy into every other country but ours.

    Doubtless that would all have been absolutely wonderful for the environment and the poor. As North Korea demonstrates.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. OneTrack (3,023 comments) says:

    Does anybody really believe that the Greens have really changed their minds and won’t suddenly change their mind again once they get their hand on the levers of power? Really?

    This is simply a cynical political ploy because the horses were started to act a bit scared.

    KIA – Agree completely

    toad – “This isn’t how Green policy-making occurs. Unlike other Parties, the Green Leadership or Caucus cannot just make up policy on the fly”

    Well, it looks to me like Russel and Clint just made up some policy-making on the fly ie dropping the money printing. Or have the foot-soldiers received the secret memo that this is just a tactical retreat.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OneTrack (3,023 comments) says:

    Alan “Doubtless that would all have been absolutely wonderful for the environment and the poor. As North Korea demonstrates.”

    Exactly. Everybody should be equally poor. Job done. And who in the Greens actually cares about the environment – it is just a Trojan horse for their socialist/communist ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    David Shearer was the keynote speaker at the Auckland Secondary School Model UN conference over the weekend and he was asked some very sharp questions by the students. It got so tough, with so few easy questions I almost felt sorry for him. One question was about the Greens’ quantitative easing policy and how he felt about it. Shearer said they’d dropped that policy that very day and he considered that a good idea. It does seem as though the parties are working together to create a near unified platform.

    The Nats just need to keep reminding people about that list of things the Greens want to ban. It’s the policies they won’t be talking up that people need to know about.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Paulus (2,607 comments) says:

    Norman is a inveterate liar. Who could believe that he would do what he says.

    Just softening up Labour until they get elected – then Labour will be even more backfooted in the coalition.
    Then Greenpeace policy is the only one that will matter.

    It is sad to see the Labour Party crumbling under this pressure. I would consider voting Labour if it kept Greens out.
    We need a sound Labour Party, even in opposition. Not the raggle taggle we see now. What a mess Helen Clark left.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @OneTrack 12:56 pm

    Well, it looks to me like Russel and Clint just made up some policy-making on the fly ie dropping the money printing.

    You must have missed what i said before. Quantitative easing has never been Green policy. It was a proposal in a Green discussion document – a proposal the Greens have now decided not to progress into policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. thedavincimode (6,710 comments) says:

    Flip flop. Where have we heard that before?

    There is no doubt that the ginga whinga has emerged as the paramount weasel on our political scene.

    toad

    Personality politics isn’t green policy either. But the ginga whinga marches to a different drum.

    Does this mean the troops have taken him behind the bike sheds and sorted him out?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. hmmokrightitis (1,586 comments) says:

    You miss the point toad. The leader of your party – sorry, one of them – was publicly and repeatedly saying that QE was an idea whose time had come for NZ. End of.

    Do you have any idea how utterly fucking ridiculous that is as a proposition? I know you guys are fringe, but QE in an economy as small as ours?

    Thats not merely stupid, its actually a short bus ride from treasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    so while Russel may think it is a good idea (and I do too, if its purpose is restricted to things such as the Christchurch rebuild that have little inflationary impact)

    Printing money undermines the value of every existing dollar in the money supply. This effect cannot be avoided simply by saying “this freshly printed money is only for rebuilding Christchurch.”

    Absolute naivety.

    None of this is to say that QE is the right policy for NZ right now, but to label it as beyond the economic pale is just stupid.

    Except Russel wasn’t proposing QE – QE is where the govt buys assets from banks, using freshly printed money, to provide them the means (and confidence) to lend, under circumstances where interest rates are all but 0% and the banks are still unwilling to lend.

    Those conditions do not exist in NZ and there is no way Russel was promoting an injection of cash into the banks. He was simply trying to print cash to spend – not QE. And he was trying to fool the public that his proposal was something it wasn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Roflcopter (456 comments) says:

    You’d be deluded if you thought the Greens “shelved” ideas will remain “shelved” past the moment they form a coalition government.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. jaba (2,137 comments) says:

    another little change the Gweens want, but will say little about it officially, is a name change from New Zealand to Aotearoa .. ask them

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Ross12 (1,410 comments) says:

    Some advise for Toad to take back to HO.

    It is OK for people to change their minds ( in fact I respect people who do and front up and say so). But if you are going to do it, be honest and straight up , dont’t put BS spin on it saying it was never policy etc etc. We all know that is rubbish. With Norman saying it seemed to a much bigger issue for Key than the Greens just shows him up for what he is –full of BS as I said above.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jackkerouacsnephew (27 comments) says:

    Russell Norman is an Australian communist at heart.
    He believes in money printing because that would redistribute wealth.
    The same way as his former leader whats his name Rod someone, knocked off by you know who,
    believed in MMP to resdistribute the votes.

    Green believe in Money printing
    Green believe in redistribution of your income
    Green Norman is so naive and stupid he thought he could compare Key to Mulddoon.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    In the West the closest thing we have to the reemergence of an actual fascist organisation, the extraordinarily wealthy supporting extreme right wing groups, is the Tea Party movement in the US.

    Reading the crazy shit that oozes through the comments whenever the Green Party gets a mention on this blog is like witnessing a Tea Party rally. There is more to life than being flunkies for foreign corporate thieves, something many here struggle to comprehend.

    The more successful the likes of John Key and his foreign corporate backers are in inflicting neo-liberal dogma on the New Zealand population the more disastrous the consequences will be for the majority of people living here. The kind of economic and social degradation National, Act and the right-wing of the Labour Party pursue will cause a backlash – the only question being the scale and the ferocity of the reaction.

    The only thing the Green Party is capable of is providing possible alternatives for consideration to a dogmatic economic agenda that only serves the interests of the extraordinarily wealthy and their business-class attack dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    kiwi in america :

    “Yozza
    Are you a Leninist, Trotskyist or Moaist?”

    Libertarian Socialist.

    I already know what you are, … a crawler.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kiwi in america (2,428 comments) says:

    Yoza
    Are you a Leninist, Trotskyist or Moaist? Or do you just borrow your talking points from John Minto? It is you and your fellow ideological travel mates who are the extremists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kiwi in america (2,428 comments) says:

    I have a few friends who are socialists and you’re way to the left of them – maybe they are in the People’s Front of Judea and you are in the Judaean People’s Front!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    Russel is very attached to his plan to arse-rape the poorest in society by printing money.

    As others have pointed out, this announcement is meaningless.

    Yoza,

    Libertarian Socialist

    Now there’s a complete contradiction in terms.

    Totally confused is what you are mate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. jackkerouacsnephew (27 comments) says:

    People who vote for Nat party in New Zealand are not extremists , in fact like Australia our main parties are close to the conservative middle. We have been saved the madness of QE and printing money, and we watch now as and Europe currencies decline.
    Anoher good thing about NZ is that we will not let working people take a devalued currency as China give their slaves.

    NZ First will fail in the next election because it wishes to devalue, thereby making the value of the money of itselderly electorate less.
    Winston wants this and that, and he expects me to believe both

    This means a tough roaahead for s good NZ government .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    Libertarian socialism:

    “Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life”

    kiwi in america (1,930) Says:
    June 19th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
    “I have a few friends who are socialists and you’re way to the left of them – maybe they are in the People’s Front of Judea and you are in the Judaean People’s Front!”

    For your information I do not have anything to do with those fucking splitters, I’m in the Popular People’s Judean Front!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Thats not merely stupid, its actually a short bus ride from treasonable.

    Your faux outrage has been noted.

    Meanwhile 40,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years. Obviously that is not an issue for Tories. Labour will be forced to pick up the pieces after this lot have cravenly walked away.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    You’re making my point for me.

    Socialism is thuggery and attaching the adjective “libertarian” to it doesn’t change that fact one jot.

    It’s like saying “Libertarian Organised Crime.”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    Anyone who knows anything about organised crime understands how close they are to big business and secretive establishment institutions like the CIA. The likes of the international illicit drug trade could not survive, on the scale it does, without the collusion of the US government.

    Standing for those who are victims of the thieving wealthy few is only thuggery in the eyes of that wealthy few and their craven business-class guard dogs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    On the one hand you warn about the inherent dangers on big government and on the other you claim to be a Socialist.

    Too weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    wat dabney (2,761) Says:
    June 19th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
    “Yoza,

    On the one hand you warn about the inherent dangers on big government and on the other you claim to be a Socialist.

    Too weird.”

    This is the kind of mindless crap people like you accept as doctrine. The modern capitalist state would collapse without ‘big government’, … or can’t you remember the various governments around the world bailing out the private banking system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,725 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    The modern capitalist state would collapse without ‘big government’

    Then it’s not Capitalism, is it.

    It’s what’s called Crony Capitalism, which actually is completely unrelated to Capitalism (it’s a bit like your “Libertarian Socialist” oxymoron.)

    And this is the problem: we need Capitalism for freedom and prosperity. Yet people like you advocate Socialism, which means prosperity for the politically-organised and coercion for the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    “Libertarian Socialism”

    Advocating the principles of liberty, as defined by the State

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. thedavincimode (6,710 comments) says:

    The modern capitalist state would collapse without ‘big government’, … or can’t you remember the various governments around the world bailing out the private banking system.

    This is the kind of mindless crap people like you accept as doctrine.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. OneTrack (3,023 comments) says:

    “Your faux outrage has been noted.

    Meanwhile 40,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years.”

    Yes, how the hell did Helen trash 20000 manufacturing job in the six months before she left office. Was that the result of the cumulative effects of her socialist policies. We dont want to go there again do we.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    can’t you remember the various governments around the world bailing out the private banking system.

    Something that went completely and utterly against the principles of capitalism. The concept of ‘Too big to fail’ is just a form of government sponsered insurance that allows speculators to take risks that they should not be taking. It was, as Wat Dabney very correctly said, crony capitalism at its worst, aided and abetted by excessive and wrong-headed regulation by governments.

    The truly capitalist approach would have been to allow those businesses to go under.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    bhudson :
    “Advocating the principles of liberty, as defined by the State”

    That adequately defines the current state of affairs.

    thedavincimode: “This is the kind of mindless crap people like you accept as doctrine.”

    You are not seriously attempting to say the private banking system was not bailed out by big government in the US and the UK, I mean you would have to be insane. I could easily supply countless links to back up the claim that they did.

    wat dabney: “The modern capitalist state would collapse without ‘big government’”

    Then it’s not Capitalism, is it.

    It’s what’s called Crony Capitalism, which actually is completely unrelated to Capitalism.”

    Crony capitalism in collusion with big government is the only form of capitalism society can tolerate, the Libertarian fantasy would collapse without massive support from the state. Take the example of the arch-Libertarian (and good mate of John Key) who is more than happy to go bowing and scraping for handouts from the CIA to support his ‘capitalist’ enterprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Crony capitalism in collusion with big government is the only form of capitalism bureaucrats can tolerate

    There, fixed that for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    F E Smith:

    “Something that went completely and utterly against the principles of capitalism.” Heh, a principled capitalist – now that’s an oxymoron!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    That adequately defines the current state of affairs.

    If that were, in fact, the case you would be completely in support of it, as a Libertarian Socialist.

    So either it isn’t, or you are as phoney as a $13 dollar bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,119 comments) says:

    ‘Meanwhile 40,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years. Obviously that is not an issue for Tories. Labour will be forced to pick up the pieces after this lot have cravenly walked away.’

    Joyce answered that adequately earlier in the week. He gave the job numbers in manufacturing that would be expected to be lost and gained in manufacturing in a year. You need to explain your statements more carefully ross69 or else you will get a bull-crapper certificate.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    bhudson :
    “That adequately defines the current state of affairs.

    If that were, in fact, the case you would be completely in support of it, as a Libertarian Socialist.

    So either it isn’t, or you are as phoney as a $13 dollar bill.”

    The state, with the assent of big business, defines the limits of liberty. Any libertarian socialist understands that this is not a legitimate form of authourity, an acceptable definition of liberty would be that which could be accepted by an adequately informed majority and which does not oppress the dissenting minority. (confiscating the ill-gotten gains of the wealthy few is justice rather than oppression, as the exercise of those concentrations of capital by the privileged minority to coerce the obedience of the marginalised majority is the original oppressive act.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    an acceptable definition of liberty would be that which could be accepted by an adequately informed majority and which does not oppress the dissenting minority

    That could be the definition of something, but the one thing is could not be is a definition of liberty. Liberty is not defined by popular vote. You should try reading JS Mill, among others.

    Perfectly illustrating how wat was right on the mark.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Keeping Stock (10,299 comments) says:

    Toad here, bsprout on my blog and Norman and Hey Clint on Twitter; they’re all dancing on the heads of pins trying to put a positive spin on this, but a flip-flop is a flip-flop is a flip-flop.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “You should try reading JS Mill, among others.”

    Why should I, if JS Mill is so important to you then surely you could adequately paraphrase his writings in a way that clearly illustrates the point you are failing so miserably to make.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    I fear the problem is more your capacity for comprehension, Yoza.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “I fear the problem is more your capacity for comprehension, Yoza.”

    So you are incapable of defending whatever this gibberish is that you are attempting to peddle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. thedavincimode (6,710 comments) says:

    confiscating the ill-gotten gains of the wealthy few is justice rather than oppression, as the exercise of those concentrations of capital by the privileged minority to coerce the obedience of the marginalised majority is the original oppressive act

    Translation: pinch the money.

    I guess you don’t do anything particularly useful yoza, and you want to keep things that way. So, how do you fix the problem of everyone being like you in this brand new utopia? After all, somebody has to weed the cabbage patch. I guess the trick is to make sure you’re the one calling the shots and not all the marginalised majority plebs. Am I imagining it, or has this been tried before?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    So you are incapable of defending whatever this gibberish is that you are attempting to peddle.

    No. I fear you are incapable of understanding it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. thedavincimode (6,710 comments) says:

    You are not seriously attempting to say the private banking system was not bailed out by big government in the US and the UK, I mean you would have to be insane. I could easily supply countless links to back up the claim that they did.

    No. What is your point?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “I guess you don’t do anything particularly useful yoza, …” I’m a builder, take from that whatever you like.

    ” I guess the trick is to make sure you’re the one calling the shots and not all the marginalised majority plebs.”No, the ‘trick’ would be to work toward implementing a system that prevents the marginalisation of the majority, something the current system and the likes of the Soviet system failed at miserably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. thedavincimode (6,710 comments) says:

    Well you just beaver away and let us know what the perfect solution is. Maybe you’ll come up with a system that will incentivise everyone to give their all for everyone else and be deliriously happy in the process. Imagine being the only person in 5,000 years to figure that one out.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “Well you just beaver away…”

    Absolutely! After all, the revolution is everywhere all the time and will not cease until it has no reason to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    DPF: “Russel Norman was constantly tweeting that we should be printing money, …”

    The speed at which technology is advancing, especially printers, in the not too distant future anyone will be able to print as much money as they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    The state, with the assent of big business,

    Ah, a conspiracy theorist!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    F E Smith:
    “The state, with the assent of big business,

    Ah, a conspiracy theorist!”

    Yeah, a conspiracy theorist in the tradition of John Dewey: “As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.”

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

    Yoza
    Where is the model socialist state in your opinion? Which has been the most model up until now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    The Spanish anarchist model which was wiped out by force by the fascists with the collusion of the social democrats, soviet backed communists and the Western democracies (most notably Britain) during the early 20th century. Daniel Guerin’s Anarchism provides some interesting insights along with a Noam Chomsky essay (which I can’t remember the title) has a detailed study taken from official records from Britain and the US at the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. big bruv (13,727 comments) says:

    “along with a Noam Chomsky essay”

    Ha ha ha…you’ve just lost the argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    Every essay Chomsky presents is densely peppered with references to historical documentation, really Big Bruv you should at least try a little bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    Here it is: ‘Objectivity and Liberal Scolarship’ (1969), Noam Chomsky (89 pages with 147 detailed footnotes)

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

    Yoza
    Hmm – the 2nd Spanish Republic passed a Constitution in 1931 that envisaged the nationalization of land, banks and railways. Do you approve of those goals? The Spanish anarchists you idolize led miners and socialists to the violent occupation of Oviedo in 1934 where they killed officials, clergymen and burned theatres. Do you support these actions of the Spanish anarchists? Would you have supported Caballero’s call for a socialist revolution?

    And finally you say you are a builder – who pays your wages or are you self employed? And if self employed who are your main customers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “Yoza
    Hmm – the 2nd Spanish Republic passed a Constitution in 1931 that envisaged the nationalization of land, banks and railways. Do you approve of those goals?”
    Absolutely.

    “The Spanish anarchists you idolize led miners and socialists to the violent occupation of Oviedo in 1934 where they killed officials, clergymen and burned theatres. Do you support these actions of the Spanish anarchists?”

    With some reservations, I’m not opposed to the elimination of elements of the class enemy. I know this sounds a little harsh and leaves me open to a wide range of attack, but, as the cliche goes: you don’t make omelettes without breaking eggs. I wouldn’t advocate anyone do anything which I wasn’t prepared to do myself. The West does have a massive capacity for inflicting horrific violence on defenceless populations in non-white countries as a means of preserving the status, influence and economic dominance of Western elites, they are not the innocent lambs the media portrays them as.

    This paradigm has been well understood for thousands of years and is succinctly summed up in the biblical passage:

    GALATIANS 6: 7-9
    7: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

    “Would you have supported Caballero’s call for a socialist revolution?”

    Again, with reservations. The centralised Soviet model is anathema to anyone with anarchist inclinations and would not be acceptable to any workers anywhere. I would be more closely aligned with the principles of the Spanish CNT.

    “And finally you say you are a builder – who pays your wages or are you self employed? And if self employed who are your main customers?”

    I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. We live in a social structure that uses economic pressure to coerce its population to rent themselves out in order to survive – the choice is pretty stark: Work or accept the miserable circumstances and social stigma going on an unemployment benefit entails.

    Violence should always be the last resort, but it would be utterly naive to completely dismiss it as an option.

    I imagine you will have fun with my responses, … knock yourself out, KIA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    (89 pages with 147 detailed footnotes)

    How many of those footnotes cite himself?

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

    Yoza
    It is as I suspected. You support revolutionary struggle – violent if necessary to ensure power is handed to ‘the people’. It makes a mockery of your accusations of extremism to groups like the Tea Party (of which I am NOT a member) who have done physical violence to no one. In the case of the 2nd Spanish Republic it was snuffed out before it could nationalize everything but in the case of Soviet Russia and its Eastern bloc allies that embraced communism (either willingly or coerced by virtue of proximity to the Soviets) and Maoist China, the dream of nationalization of industry was achieved. How was the plight of the workers in these communist states benefited by State control of the means of production, distribution and exchange vis a vis the standard of living of workers in the west.

    It is commendable that you value the dignity of work over the dole especially within the ideological beliefs you operate under. I know nothing of your employer but I have been a developer and did hire builders and paid the good workers above average wages and I was flexible with the working conditions. The risk I took was high and yes it was motivated by profit that you consider so perverse. I had another business that enabled me to live but had I been wholly a developer, I can say that for the 3 years from start to final settlements of the sold apartments, that the workers I employed made more than I did without the stress of the huge mortgage or the threat of losing my home if the project failed. In the end I made a modest profit but frankly if it was all I was doing I would’ve been better off working for someone else. My point is that an entrepreneur is paying your wages. He/she has taken a risk laying his assets and savings on the line for the sake of a profit that may not ever happen. His risk enabled him/her to hire you and others. He pays PAYE tax on yours and others wages, he pays GST on his sales in excess of the GST of his materials and services expended, he will pay tax on his eventual profit. The contractors he hires follow this same pattern and you, your fellow workers and contractors spend your wages/earning in the wider economy thus incrementally enriching landlords or banks, the supermarket owners and oil company selling the petrol we put in our car. Without that entrepreneurial risk and all the taxes harvested along the way through the PRIVATE economy there is no money for governments to spend on nurses, police, doctors and school teachers or benefits for the poor. When you threaten to nationalize the private economy (as pure socialists like you suggest) this cycle of wealth creation stops dead in its tracks. The very wealthy flee the country and expatriate or hide their wealth, the entrepreneurial class take their skills and capital to jurisdictions that will not confiscate and you are left with party committees chosen more because of ideological purity and adherence to dogma to make decisions about the allocation of resources. The system is inefficient, dogged by cronyism, misallocates resources to things the Party deems a priority (guns vs butter) and the ever more repressive apparatuses of the state to keep people in line and the assets and entrepreneurial drive that left will never return leaving everyone to fight over a shrinking pie.

    Your nirvana sounds oh so wonderful when espoused by Noam Chomsky from the safety of his protected tenured position at MIT a position funded by the evil profits of the businesses that endow the august American universities but it has never worked wherever it has been tried. I’m not sure how you vote: Mana? Socialist Unity Party? There’s a reason why they garner not even 1% of the vote. The utter failure of socialism in all its iterations is one of the reasons why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    “How many of those footnotes cite himself?”

    I mucked it up, it’s actually 151 footnotes. 15 are either ibid. or refer to a detailed explanation/history of the event being described. These notes were no.s 43, 55, 56, 68, 72, 73, 79, 83, 88, 89, 117, 118, 133, 135, 136, 139 and 144.

    It is Chomsky at his comprehensive best, the footnotes go on for 24 pages.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. bhudson (4,738 comments) says:

    It is Chomsky at his comprehensive best

    If “Profit over People” is anything to go by, then his use of footnotes is sparse as he tends to make statements of purported facts without evidence (who is he to be challenged) and many of the footnotes he does have actually cite other of his own books (I guess because, again, who is he to be challenged.)

    Assuming the book is at least a couple of hundred pages, 150 footnotes is not many

    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.