Facepalm. Massive facepalm.
Printable View
It probably makes then feel like they are contributing in some way (as you point out, they aren’t really) and it allows people like red panda to grandstand about how beneficiaries are taxed and taxed again via GST.
35,000 people on ‘Jobseeker’ for more than one year when employers are crying out for workers.
Thanks for clarifying. As I said, I think it is ridiculous that benefits are taxed. It would be far better to make them tax free so that people get a little more in their pocket. That way, maybe (at least some) beneficiaries would be able to survive without needing additional emergency type payments.
As an example, taken from the WINZ website:
A single person over 18 on a supported living payment (health related)
Gross weekly payment = $443.73
Nett weekly payment = $384.92
Tax = $58.81/week
$58 is a significant amount. Enough for many people on that benefit to manage without having to ask WINZ for extra support via an emergency grant or whatever. $58 could be the difference between being able to put food on the table that week, or seeing a GP, or putting towards their power bill. It makes absolutely no sense to tax beneficiaries, then have to provide additional financial support, in order for them to survive.
Our government, whichever one, needs to start thinking outside the square.
Jones' prediction for election - 20 to 23 seats for Act.
https://nopunchespulled.com/2023/09/...irs/#more-5536
Sorry -can't help. Haven't followed the issue. I understand that in the North at least, iwi organisations add money from their own resources to supplement govt funding so they can enhance the services offred on a contractual basis. That probably applies elsewhere as well.
But I doubt that TOW settlements are regarded by the parties as being connected to or intended for directly assisting the urban poor (or the rural poor of the rohe for that matter) more as a duty owed by one party to recognise and right a wrong (at 2 or 3 cents in the dollar) done to the other.
Sensible policies from ACT that will be demonised by the bleeding hearts and latent marxists that are turning New Zealand into an economic basket-case.
Stress is a normal part of life and a normal part of working. Stress comes with having responsibilities, both for ones self & for loved ones. People who assume the responsibilities of being a good and productive citizen will experience stress when they deal with work commitments, family commitments, mortgage and other financial commitments. 'Stress' is not a valid reason to spend one's life opting out of commitments and expecting the nation to pick up the costs associated with that choice.
If intellectually handicapped, disabled, and elderly people can all undertake paid work then people who experience 'stress' and addictions certainly can as well, with the right support.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...OHSW67ISHBD5Q/
Election 2023: Act leader David Seymour wants to see more drug addicts, sickness beneficiaries rejoin workforce
RNZ
15 Sep, 2023 01:05 PM
'Drug addicts will face the prospect of losing their benefit if they refuse treatment or don’t make efforts to find work, the Act Party leader says.
David Seymour who is visiting Christchurch today has announced the party’s policy on welfare which takes a harder line on drug addicts and those on sickness benefits, including those who suffer from long-term stress.
Act wants to reduce the current number of 4000 people who receive the Supported Living Payment because of stress, 70 per cent of them for more than five years.
Stress is a condition that can be treated over time, not a permanent incapacity, the party says.
Under the welfare policy “designated doctors” will be hired to identify cases of fraud and ineligibility, ensure people are on the correct benefit, and are supported to meet any job-seeking obligations.
“It will increase the number of cases that are picked up as fraud, as there will be more active inquiries into cases, and doctors will feel empowered to offer a frank opinion.”
The party will also ease pressure on doctors over assessments of whether a beneficiary has the capacity to work.
At present they are required to discuss a work capacity certificate with the patient and ensure they agree to the information being provided.
“They are put in a difficult position if the patient disagrees with their opinion. Act will allow doctors to complete work capacity certificates privately so they can give a frank opinion,” Seymour says.
The newly released welfare policy is tied in with Act’s policy announced earlier to rename the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as Mental Health and Addiction New Zealand which would organise providers for a person’s therapy and care.
Earlier this week Seymour was promoting the party’s law and order policy, saying Act would ensure tougher sentences for serious crimes, increase the capacity of the prison system and put victims back in the centre of the justice system.
Act says 4100 people receive a benefit because they are addicted to drugs, costing taxpayers $76 million a year. About 2700 of them are on the Jobseeker benefit and almost 30 per cent of them have received it for more than six years.
“Either they’re choosing not to comply with the obligations of their benefit, or their addiction is so far gone that they can’t comply,” Seymour said.
More than 1000 have been receiving a benefit for more than 10 years.
ACT intends taking “a more proactive approach” with drug-addicted beneficiaries.
“For those on the Jobseeker benefit, this will mean greater enforcement of job-seeking obligations and preparing for work. The most urgent task is ensuring beneficiaries can get clean enough to work.”
To this end the party intends cracking down on any people who it says might be responsible for their own “incapacity” so that they can receive a benefit.
“One way of demonstrating this would be participation in mental health and addiction services. Someone who demonstrates no intention of, or motivation to, address their incapacity and become independent may find themselves ineligible for a benefit.”
The party is promising that mental health and addiction services will be available for those seeking treatment, saying its plans to recruit more health workers will ease current shortages.
Seymour says it’s appropriate some people who have a significant illness or disability are supported, however, of the 165,000 New Zealanders receiving either Jobseeker Support - Health Condition or Disability or the Supported Living Payment “many could return to work if they got the right support”.
“Act says if you can work, you should.”
Features of the policy Act intends to push for:
-Require Ministry of Social Development case managers to consider if all reasonable treatment options have been pursued before deciding if a medical condition should be accepted as permanent.
- Expand the roles of regional health advisors and “designated doctors” to pick up on fraud and ineligibility, ensure people are on the correct benefit, and are supported to meet any job-seeking obligations.
- Enable doctors to complete work capacity certificates privately to avoid having to provide advice under duress.
- Take a more proactive and systematic approach to ensuring beneficiaries whose primary incapacity is substance abuse are taking steps to become independent
Seymour blames Labour for wasting the potential of thousands of people by allowing them to remain them on welfare for years on end.
“Act will provide hope and opportunity by helping sick and drug-addicted beneficiaries who can get off the benefit and back into work to do so,” Seymour says.'
What will having drug addicts, ex-crims and others in a workplace do for productivity?
Will the current workforce become more stressed at having to work alongside them, and leave?
Well there you go, writing a whole group pf people off and saying they are beyond help & can never earn decent incomes, never take personal responsibility, never know the dignity and the self esteem that comes with paid work, never know the camaraderie of a workplace & the joy and respect that goes with that.
Why are the Left so keen to write people off and say they are beyond help?
Why are the Left so keen to see drug addicts stay on the drugs, stay on a benefit, and eventually succumb to a miserable death in some execrable hovel somewhere?
Why do the Left - who say they are all about ‘rehabilitation’ and second chances - not want ‘ex crims’ to work?
Why do the Left want to see someone with ‘stress’ stay on a benefit for the rest of their lives?
Because the Left needs societal flotsam and jetsam to both sustain its philosophy, & to provide its support base. The Left needs to be able to point at various groups of ‘victims’ and say “see, the system doesn’t work, ‘capitalism’ has failed, we need ‘progressivism, we need a revolution’. The Left needs downtrodden and disenfranchised people to sustain it, it needs to stoke envy and hate. It needs to stoke anger and division. Don’t ever think that the Left promotes ‘kindness’. It is quite the opposite.
This social experiment could have come from the left - ie the labour party.
Regardless of where it comes from its doomed to fail.
Keep in mind if they do get a job they're still poor and not gonna be national voters.
I don’t care about who they vote for, I care that they are supported and helped and get back into society rather than die in a ditch somewhere so that the Left can use them in its nihilistic propaganda.
If you had any empathy you’d get past your bleak pessimism and get in behind initiatives like this, rather than pooh-pooh the whole thing before you even see the detail. But I suppose you approach every issue with a Left-wing mindset: “Duh, ‘neoliberalism’, duh, ‘capitalist exploiters’….trickle down hurr durr…’selfish’, innit….Marx good…ACT bad.”
Marx would endorse putting these workers into the capitalist economy to sabotage the production process.
I'm for lifting and not lowering NZ's productivity.
As I said before: you’ve written off thousands of people and have said they are beyond rehabilitation & beyond redemption. Even people who have ‘stress’! You are perfectly happy to see them live hand-to-mouth on benefits for the rest of their days. I’m disgusted at your attitude.
You seem to like Marx as you spreak about him alot.
I don't have alot of time for long dead philosophers (except the greek ones who were brilliant).
Wonder why - he's running to be our PM.
I'm not trying to revive someone whose long expired. :)
He probably fears an ambush, perhaps a biased mediator, some Left wing plants in the audience asked skewed questions, collusion between Labour and the organisers. You know, standard Left wing tactics. If he talks himself down then he lowers expectations for the whole event.
I just saw a video of Chipkins talking to media today and he was practically frothing at the mouth, he seemed very wound up and angry and verging on hysteria as he spewed forth a torrent of lies. Luxon by contrast always seems quite relaxed.
He really did talk himself down by saying his wife was a better debater (why isn't she running then lol).
Luxon would make a good finance minister, not a PM.
He's got 'progressive' journo's haranguing him every day. Is reasonably calm under fire under the circumstances. Imagine a world where Chipkins was also asked 'tough questions'.
Prime Minister, you've committed to building Light Rail in Auckland, how will you pay for it and why are the costs not included in your projections?
Prime Minister, how can you say your promises are fully funded when you are set to borrow $940 million a week in 2024?
Prime Minister, why have public services not improved even though your government has increased spending by 80%?
Prime Minister, why has the expected net debt projection for 2027 exploded by $55 billion since 2021?
Prime Minister, how will you pay for a second Auckland harbour crossing?
'Go Woke, Go Broke' far left media outlet 'Stuff' has accused ACT of 'targeting' drug addicts and 'the mentally ill'. At least, that's the inflammatory headline to the article written by a young progressive journalist. Of course, the accompanying photo features David Seymour in a silly hat.
This is the woke media company that aleady 'went broke' once.....it was such a loss maker that Nine Media sold it to its editor Sinead Boucher for the token sum of $1.
Since then Boucher has loaded the organisation with young progressive journalists, while periodically taking a razor to costs....usually by sacking staff. Who knows if any of what she is doing is actually working. The company is certainly woker.
But now the company seems to have staked everything on hiring acidic 'Queen of Mean' political journo Tova O'Brien, trumpeting her podcast with increasing desperation - including a banner this week on the website with the wording: 'Look out politicians - Tova's back'. Oooooh....I'm sure they are quaking in their boots.
Without soft shooting-fish-in-a-barrell targets like Jami Lee-Ross to inviscerate & her moosh on TV, the waspish O'Brien is just another talking head. Podcasts and opinion pieces by someone with tickets on themself? Why would anyone bother to read them or tune in?!
Anyway, the predictable demise of 'Stuff' is probably just a matter of time. Nine Media must be breathing a sigh of relief that they were able to off-load it at all. Better to recieve $1 that to have it kark itself while on their books.
I wonder if people were paid by Labour to show up and 'gasp' at Willis's answer. As if National's policies would not be supportive of house prices.
Labour enacted a whole bunch of policies without any analysis that produced the biggest surge in NZ house prices that this nation has ever seen.
The hypocrisy of Labourites knows no bounds.
People who are desperate to sell their house will have the sensation of a penny dropping. People who are now in negative equity will have the same sensation. If you need to sell up to go into a retirement home, or move up the ladder, or head off to Australia, you'll hear something like what Bernard Hickey said on the news last night - "prices could go up 20%!" - and you'd say to your significant other "sounds good to me - two ticks Blue!"
People in the 'squeezed middle' seeing their equity increase - how NZers really measure their wealth - will also be saying "yes! Two ticks Blue!"
The reason for the faux outrage from the Labourites and the media is because house prices have been falling, and Labour now wants to make out they've deliberately engineered that to help out first home buyers. Turn it up! It's been Reserve Bank interest rate rises that have done that. (Unless Labour want to 'take credit' for high inflation?!)
Anyway, interesting comments re ACT below -
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...J6L4SCVDTXKDI/
On the Campaign, September 15: What you missed on the election campaign today
NZ Herald
15 Sep, 2023 06:01 PM
'While the first televised leaders debate does not take place until next Tuesday, two debates last night have already showed where some voters are swinging.
The main party’s financial spokespersons - Labour’s Grant Robertson, National’s Nicola Willis, the Greens’ James Shaw and Act’s David Seymour - butted heads in Queenstown last night for the ASB Great debate.
At the same time, Hamilton played host to a debate on rural issues, hosted by Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan and organised by Dairy NZ, Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. In attendance were Labour’s Damien O’Connor, National’s Todd McClay, the Greens’ Eugenie Sage, Act’s Andrew Hoggard, and NZ First’s Mark Patterson.
Speaking to On the Campaign, the Herald’s daily election podcast, du Plessis-Allan said National’s Todd McClay was the big winner, while Labour’s Damien O’Connor performed well but not well enough to counter the toxic view farmers have of the Government.
Du Plessis-Allan said she expects Labour to lose many of their rural seats in a “bloodbath”, but does not think those votes will automatically go to National.
“I think what you will see is a huge swing from Labour to Act. I think part of that is they have been courting the farmers for a long time, but also people like [former Federated Farmers president turned Act candidate] Andrew Hoggard are bringing the votes over.
“Don’t expect red to blue, expect red to blue and yellow.”
The Herald’s Derek Cheng was at the ASB Great Debate, and said Willis and Seymour received the most warmth from the room, but Seymour won the debate in his eyes with his interjections and good humour throughout.
However, some of Willis’ answers provoked a “gasp” from the audience.
“One of them in particular was when she was asked National’s plans on interest deductibility and the brightline test and rolling those changes back and what effect that would have on house prices, and she said ‘I don’t know what effect that will have on house prices’, and the audience was deafeningly silent and was taken aback by that.”
Another comment from Willis potentially caught her leader off guard this morning, when she told Breakfast she will resign if the party’s promised tax cuts can’t be delivered, as the debate continues over the foreign buyer tax policy.'
Deleted deleted
Depends what you mean by "the money" - white man.
I can't say what happens now, but I know that in the North when I was involved, iwi organisations involved in education supplemented contractual. govt services with their own funding.
Whether TOW settlements should be "earmarked" for particular purposes as a condition of their provision or scrapped completely and replaced by an expanded education and health/welfare/social service/housing system is another matter altogether.
Northland maori are being left behind because their in-fighting over who should be negotiating with the Crown is seeing them standing at the station bereft while the gravy train sits idly on the tracks. Meanwhile Waikato maori are becoming an economic powerhouse, deploying capital into everything from mega shopping centres to inland ports.
I don’t think National is going to do ‘the same’. They will need to cut, there’s no two ways about it. Labour have spent like drunken sailors without improving outcomes, so ‘something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. There will be no more lavish breakfasts, opulent farewells, ‘working groups’ will go, consultants will be pushed off the gravy train, thumb twiddling bureaucrats will be ejected, ‘communications staff’ will find other work elsewhere, and so on and so forth.
Sorry to poop your lovely Lefty party, but austerity is incoming.
If nothing else, this Labour administration has proved that massive and unsustainable spending does not produce better outcomes, so the ‘nine years of neglect’ myth can be consigned to the dustbin of political propaganda history.
You like to get caught up in semantics and hammer away at your narrow set of talking points. It’s like you have a piece of paper in front of you with a few things written on it: ‘$20 bucks’ , ‘show us the numbers’ , ‘they’re the same so why would ‘we’ change’, ‘bald man bad’.
As I said previously, a common propaganda tactic is to hammer away at a few talking points that you always come back to, attempts to continue the same narrow debate to the point of exhaustion….are you sitting in one of President Xi’s bot farms?
Well ‘back on track’ is the official campaign slogan. It’s a phrase you seem to have taken great umbrage with.
Do you think National should be banned from having one?
Labour has one: ‘in it for YOU’. I know because Chipkins pops up on my TV screen telling me he has my back and he’s in it for me. The only problem is: I don’t believe him.
BlackPeter: stop stalking me round the site. And stop giving me negative Reputation, you just did another you idiot. You have faulty impulse control, and anger management issues, I suggest you get professional help.
Yes they were. In the context of a discussion of the discraceful disparity between current Maori and non maori life expectancy, you wrote:
And that what was called out as stupid, ignorant, and racist.
Again, you conveniently continue to conflate first european contact with colonisation. In the 80 odd years between Cook and the wave of settlers that swamped and disposesssed Maori, the latter eagerly adopted western technology and some social and cultural practices. Maori were not stone age people when they were colonised, and claiming that they were, and advancing that claim to defend and deny the ongoing deleterious effects of that colonisation is ignorant, stupid, and racist.
The ‘colonisation’ process demonstrably started on the day of contact. To try to say that it’s a process that only started on an exact date to be decided by you is tantamount to stating that you own facts, and you don’t. ‘Colonisation’ began on the day that European tools, weapons, food stuffs, methods etc began to be introduced to, and adopted by, the Maori world.
I find you to be aggressive, arrogant, and abusive. You think you are a smartsa*se when you repeat your little sentence time and time again. My contention is that contact and colonisation have not produced ‘appalling outcomes’ for contemporary maori people, and I fully stand by that comment. If there had been no contact & no adoption of European food stuffs and methods then it is possible that maori could have died out altogether in these islands. With very little quality protein sources since they wiped out species such as the moa, at the very least maori would have faced harsh and miserable lives, fully borne out by the fact that their pre-contact like expectancy was 28 - 30 years.
The astonishing thing about you is that you equate one side of a debate over history with ‘racism’. Not once have I said that the maori ‘race’ (anthropologists state that ‘race’ is an artificial construct) is physically or intellectually inferior to Europeans. This is the only basis whereby someone can be called a racist. The rest is a debate around historical facts. The only recent instance I have seen of any individual or group being racist is when the Maori Party website stated that maori are ‘genetically superior’ to others.
Likewise, saying that prior to the arrival of Europeans, maori were a ‘stone age’ culture is not racist, it is historical fact. You come along and say “but they adopted European tools and methods”. Yes, they did. And prior to getting their hands on European tools and methods they were a ‘stone age’ culture.
Don't get too worked up with davflaws - he is a do-gooder who has failed to make any appreciable difference to the so-called underprivileged he believes he champions.
Self-help is the best help, and a hand up is the only help vs a hand out - something that people like davflaws cannot comprehend.
Labour and he are only interested in breeding losers, beneficiaries and parasites - plus let me add, criminals as the last 3 years have showed with this Labour government.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...pg?format=500w
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Maoris had a Stone Age culture. Put simply, their most sophisticated tools were made of stone, wood and bone but not pottery. It was not easy to warm water! They had no metallurgy. They had not discovered the wheel or its uses – transport was by foot or afloat. (Do not imagine endless magnificent war canoes; more often humble makeshift rafts). Food was what could be gathered from nature, albeit there was some cultivation of the sweet potato that had arrived with them, in places where it was warm enough to grow. Thus, the menu: dogs, rats, fish, birds, maybe and fern roots, native plants and berries and of course, human flesh: a handy slave girl casually slaughtered if sufficient captives from the last raid on a weaker neighbouring tribe were not available. No mutton, beef, pork, potatoes or corn.
For some reason, it is considered a racial insult to describe their culture as “Stone Age”. However that does not change the facts.
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com...nd-bigger.html
I think a guy like davflaws has probably gone to University and been force-fed for multiple years a narrative that conforms with his confirmation biases. He cannot take any alternate narrative and must deploy this hackneyed term ‘racist’ at the earliest possible opportunity as a standard left wing tactic of cancelling (out) anyone on the other side of the debate.
The extraordinary this is that the genuine racists amongst us are people like Rawiri Waititi who believe that people with maori ethnicity are ‘genetically superior’ to others. I find Waititi to be stupid. I find Waititi to be ignorant. I find Waititi to be racist. People like davflaws and Chipkins can’t - or won’t - see that though.
I suspect the vast majority of those who disapproval of the term "Stone Age" being used in this context, disapprove purely because it is incorrect to use it this way
The Stone Age was a specific period of time in history. It ended around 3,300BC - so it most certainly does not apply to Maori.
"The Stone Age began about 2.6 million years ago, when researchers found the earliest evidence of humans using stone tools, and lasted until about 3,300 B.C. when the Bronze Age began. It is typically broken into three distinct periods: the Paleolithic Period, Mesolithic Period and Neolithic Period"
While agreeing with you on the historical truth of your point re when the ‘stone age’ was, nobody ever contended that maori were living in the actual ‘stone age’. Unless European ships were travelling through a portal in time, there would be no way to get back from recent centuries to the ‘stone age’.
The intention was to describe the pre-contact way of life with its closest historical parallels: a society of people using stone tools and living a rudimentary and fairly brief existence.
There is no problem with describing Maori at the time of first contact as "stone age culture".
The problem arises when you conflate first contact with colonisation. If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning
I plead guilty to arrogant prtickery on occassion, so I am unashamed to advise you: Drop your fantasies about my educational history and political background, and do some reading about the difference between a process by which European tools, weapons, food stuffs, methods etc began to be introduced to and adopted by the Maori world, and the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".
From a Maori viewpoint, the former process had almost exclusively good results, but the latter had quite mixed results. Both parties benefitted from the former process, Maori aguably more than the small number of Europeans involved. Settlers and their descendants benefitted from the latter markedly and significantly more than Maori. That difference is reflected in the current socioeconomic status of the two groups.
I am plaeased that you are now conceding (albeit grudgingly), that colonisation did have some ongoing deletorious effects. Does this concession extend to Maori health and life expectancy?
Hope ACT makes getting rid of all the special BS & Ardern introduced privileges accorded to Maori and co-governance a bottom line policy to be in coalition with National - because National is too soft to be so upfront about this need.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...-co-governance
Meanwhile, note how the coverage of ACT’s campaign launch by the Herald & Stuff is all about the hecklers rather than ACT’s policies?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...istent-heckler
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...LBKXYISAFJROU/
Trust all NZers notice the bias because it is high time that the leftist msm gets their comeuppance - so addicted are they to woke and Ardern’s bribes via the media fund. A curse on them and their future.
'If as you claim, "Colonisation’ begins when new tools, weapons, foodstuffs, methods etc are introduced to new areas, the whole world is colonised and the term has been broadened beyond any useful meaaning'
If you genuinely wish to have an intelligent debate (or even a discussion) on this point, then I am perfectly willing to do so.
If we broaden 'colonisation' to perhaps include 'the point at which alien peoples come to live amongst as' (and this occurs from the point of 'contact' onwards), then I would contend that 'colonisation' is a global phenomenon. I do think 'cultural colonisation' is as much a matter of historical fact as any of the other events we agree occured in human history.
We may look at a country like Japan and say that colonisation has not been a 'thing' that has happened there. But then if we look at the 'granular spread sheets' of the matter, we find that General Douglas MacArthur was at one time the virtual dictator of Japan, and that under his guiding hand 'modern Japan' was created:
'He was a general’s general, tough, unrelenting, a man who embraced the role history thrust on him. He was also haughty and controversial, traits that would lead to his eventual downfall. General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), arrived in Japan on August 30, 1945 to oversee the ceremony formally marking its surrender. His mission was to organize a postwar Japanese government, with two primary goals: eliminating Japan’s war potential, and turning it into a Western-style nation with a pro-American orientation.
MacArthur had full authority, almost unlimited power, to accomplish these tasks. As interim leader of Japan from Japan from 1945-48, he was responsible for confirming and enforcing sentences for Japan’s war criminals and oversaw the rebuilding of the country, including drafting the country’s new constitution and implementing a major land reform initiative.'
You can say that a country retains all of it's traditions and culture from the point of contact onwards, unless what you describe as 'colonisation' (using your definition of the term) occurs, but again - in Japan this is not evidently the case when we 'drill down'. We may consider Ramen to be that 'most Japanese' of culinary delights but:
'The origin of ramen is traced back to Yokohama Chinatown in the early 20th century. The word "ramen" is a Japanese borrowing of the Chinese word 拉麵 (lāmiàn), meaning 'pulled noodles'. The dish evolved from southern Chinese noodle dishes, reflecting the demographics of Chinese settlers in Yokohama. Ramen gained popularity in Japan, especially during food shortages following World War II. In 1958, instant noodles were invented by Momofuku Ando, further popularizing the dish. Today, ramen is a cultural icon in Japan, with many regional varieties and a wide range of toppings.'
What about the Japanese and their ongoing eating of whale meat? That is a cultural practice that may have declined and then died out, if not for the intervention of MacArthur:
General Douglas MacArthur encouraged the surrendered Japan to continue whaling in order to provide a cheap source of meat to starving people (and millions of dollars in oil for the US and Europe). The Japanese whaling industry quickly recovered as MacArthur authorized two tankers to be converted into factory ships, the Hashidate Maru and the Nisshin Maru. Whale catchers once again took blue whales, fins, humpbacks and sperm whales in the Antarctic and elsewhere
Other cultural changes & 'colonisations' in Japan have much deeper roots:
Buddhism entered Japan some time during the 6th century CE from the Korean peninsula and China. The transmission of Buddhism through Northeast Asia is generally known as Mahāyāna Buddhism. Over subsequent centuries, the movement of Mahāyāna Buddhism in Japan developed into its own set of distinctive traditions and schools, many of which prevail today both in the country and worldwide. Alongside Shintō, Buddhist thought continues to influence Japanese societal values and attitudes.
---
It seems that in the world we live in, 'colonisation' is defined as a process that the British Empire 'inflicted' on other peoples.
And slavery is treated as something that was invented by Europeans and broke out spontaneously in America as well.
How many people have a real grasp of human history, and just how common (and prolonged) things that are judged to be 'evil' have been with us?
---
As regards the effects of colonisation on health and longevity, I've written previous posts on how I believe Maori would have fared under other scenarios, of which there are three.
1/ Maori continued to exist in their traditional tribal groupings, in isolation. We know this to be an impossibility as contact would have eventually occured even if early European explorers had not found New Zealand.
2/ 'Contact' occured, but Maori were somehow co-operate and co-ordinate between the various Iwi groupings to strictly contain and control how this contact was regulated*, to the point that all their laws and customs applied in this land and any 'alien people who came to live amongst them' were limited in number and had to abide by said Maori laws. This would be an alternate reality where Maori Iwi continued to live as their own individual 'nation states', and perhaps internicine war between the various tribes would continue on until Maori were able to 'unite' (how would this have been achieved though? One group conquering all others would have laid the groundwork for future internal conflict) and form some sort of homogenous - perhaps federated - state. Or New Zealand remained splintered as various small 'countries' split on tribal lines.
3/ Events occured as they have.**
I cannot honestly & intellectually say to you that Maori health and longevity would be much, much better under either of the first two scenarios. The only concession I can make to you is that there appears to often be good and bad in any human process.
*Maori were already admitting in 1840, at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, that they had lost control of the process of 'alien peoples coming to live amongst us':
Tāmati Wāka Nene said to the chiefs:
"Some of you tell Hobson to go. But that's not going to solve our difficulties. We have already sold so much land here in the north. We have no way of controlling the Europeans who have settled on it. I'm amazed to hear you telling him to go! Why didn't you tell the traders and grog-sellers to go years ago? There are too many Europeans here now and there are children that unite our races."
**There is an alternate reality where France is the 'physical' coloniser:
Hōne Heke said (to Hobson):
"Governor, you should stay with us and be like a father. If you go away then the French or the rum sellers will take us Maori over. How can we know what the future will bring? If you stay, we can be 'all as one' with you and the missionaries."
Colonisation is an ongoing process in the world and now it is being done by corporations rather than countries to impose western values and capitalism on other countries though globalisation and corporatism. Western countries especially Britain support this because it creates wealth for them. It does create poverty for the indigenous people in countries like El Salvador and Honduras.
This is detailed in the book Silent Coup: How Corporations Overthrew Democracy by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard.
As European empires crumbled in the 20th century, the power structures that had dominated the world for centuries were up for renegotiation. Yet instead of a rebirth for democracy, what emerged was a silent coup against its very core – namely, the unstoppable rise of global corporate power.
The book provides an explosive guide to the rise of a corporate empire that now dictates how resources are allocated, how territories are governed, and how justice is defined.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silent-Coup-Corporations-Overthrew-Democracy/dp/1350269980
When Silent Coup’s findings are situated within a broader political analysis, it becomes evident how these international networks give rise to a twenty-first-century imperialism or neo-colonialism: developing nations are exploited by private organisations operating within the international political framework.
https://www.bilaterals.org/?silent-coup-how-corporations
Colonisation - the loss of land, political, social and military hegemony as a result of deliberate policy decisions by a foreign power which constitute "colonisation".
Now it is also known as neoliberalism which is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free trade, deregulation, globalization. Neoliberalism is related to laissez-faire economics, which prescribes a minimal amount of government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society.
Well that definition is very interesting indeed. Exactly how far away does the ‘foreign power’ have to be? On the other side of a mountain range? Across a body of water between two islands? 1,000 kms of distance?
Another definition here:
‘The act of taking control of an area or a country that is not your own, especially using force, and sending people from your own country to live there.’
And again, in a New Zealand context different Iwi functioned as their own nation states. Once we get past a notion of Maori as a being homogenous politically and socially - a completely artificial construct - and start looking at them as individual groupings competing with each other for land and resources, then we arrive at a true understanding about the nature of human affairs. There is something universal about the way humans have conducted themselves throughout history. Life itself is a story of struggle for survival.
No, I don’t agree that ‘colonialism’ and ‘neoliberalism’ are the same things, with only the terminology changing over time.
When I gave the definition of neoliberalism as simply meaning less government regulation & more private ownership, some wag came back with an even simpler definition: ‘rich people doing whatever they want’.
Yet that definition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You can regulate businesses less, but they are still regulated. They cannot do whatever they want. Businesses must pay tax, they must collect GST on behalf of the government, they must abide by health and safety laws. If they wish to manufacture and store hazardous chemicals they must adhere to certain regulations and submit to mandatory inspections. They have to pay duties and taxes and clear their goods with the NZ Customs Service if they are an importer and / or exporter. I am using examples from my personal experience, but I am only scratching the surface.
The Left-wing mind just over-simplifies real life, stripping out complexity and reducing everything to a childs tale of good vs evil.
Free trade has been around since the dawn of time. It is not something that was recently cooked up by ‘neoliberals’. This word ‘neoliberal’ is just a hugely loaded term now. If you look at the pure definition of what it means, it is utterly unremarkable. But there is some power about this word that has Leftists in its thrall: they throw it into a conversation like a hand grenade. I wonder if it’s the ‘neo’ part, maybe they hope to invoke - or invoke in their own minds - ‘neo-nazi’.
AGAIN:
BlackPeter: stop stalking me round the site. And stop giving me negative Reputation, you just did another you idiot. You have faulty impulse control, and anger management issues, I suggest you get professional help.
Sigh ...
look Azz, I tend to give negative reputation for posts which attack other posters (instead of discussing a certain subject) and I tend to give negative reputation for posts spreading already debunked lies (aka conspiracy theories).
If you feel that you get too much negative rep, than maybe this is the reason.
I am sure (no, that's actually not true), but I hope you are able to find better and more positive ways to contribute to this forum. :) ;
Neoliberalism = rich people doing what they want is a good definition.
Neoliberalism = economic freedom, less regulation from government.
Neoliberalism can be interpreted either as a utopian project to realize a theoretical design for the reorganization of international capitalism (free trade, free markets, property rights etc) or a political project to reestablish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites. Neoliberalism has been very successful in restoring or in some cases creating the power of an economic elite. The theoretical utopianism has worked as a system of justification and legitimisation of whatever needed to be done to achieve this goal.
One condition of post-war settlement in almost all countries was the economic power of the upper classes be restrained and that labour be accorded a much labour share of the pie. When growth collapsed in the 1970s, when real interest rates went negative and paltry dividends and profits were the norm, then the upper classes felt threated. In the US the control of wealth (as opposed to income) by the top 1% had remained fairly stable over throughout the 20th century. But in the 1970s it plunged precipitously as asset values (stocks, property, savings) collapsed. The upper classes had to move decisively if they were to protect themselves from political and economic annihilation. And so we had Thatcher and Reagan pushing neoliberalism.
Fear of communism was a large part of the reason why the rich tolerated high tax rates. There was an economic alternative out there (not a very good one... ghost cities and state run turnip farms).
Now they can get away with much more. They've pitted nations against each other in a "manufactured" competition on tax rates and regulation, the way to overcome it is global agreement among developed countries like Biden's minimum tax rate. If they want to move outside the "club" then they can enjoy having no protection for their assets.
The first experiment with neoliberal state formation occurred in Chile after Pinochet’s coup in 1973. The coup, against the democratically elected government was promoted by business elites threatened by Allende’s drive towards socialism. It was backed by US corporations, the CIA, and US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. It violently repressed all the social movements and political organisations of the left e.g. community health centres. The labour market was freed from regulatory or institutional restraints (trade union power.) Economists working with the IMF restructured the economy according to neoliberal theories. They reversed nationalization and privatised public assets, opened up natural resources (fisheries, timber etc) to private unregulated exploitation, privatised social security, facilitated foreign direct investment and freer trade.
Sounds like colonialism to me.
He certainly would be in good company with Kate Hannah and Sanjana.
Thankfully the Disinformation Project has lost its power and mandate after being caught pretty much spreading disinformation.
https://thedisinfoproject.org/about-us/our-people/
I have neither a view on the project nor on the people you are referring to, but I find it interesting that the only people I came across so far trashing the disinformation project seem to be either conspiracy theorists, trolls, or their supporters.
Just based on this observation it appears it is a good project ... it seems to hit the right crowd.
That may be true to a point, but when they go out and say that you need to watch out for girls with braided hair and woman that do knitting and arts.... that was very amusing.
Anyway, I see this is the ACT thread. Not going to vote for them, although I do align with them the best in the tv votemeter thing. Followed closely by Nats and NZ first. Probably end up voting for Winston this time around. But have not made up my mind yet.
Big brothers are watching you according to the Disinformation Project
12 September 2023: Independent research group The Disinformation Project is concerned about the use of invasive user tracking and micro-targeting technology by four major political parties ahead of the 2023 General Election. The group has discovered that the official websites of Labour, National, ACT, and the Green Party use Facebook Pixel without disclosure or user consent, to track all visitors. Pixel-tracking technology, like Facebook Pixel, follows a website’s visitors across other websites and even mobile apps, recording and sharing their information, interests, and behaviour.
https://thedisinfoproject.org/resources/
I couldn't care less. I have nothing to hide, no secrets, no agenda, so if they want to track me, they can be my guest. My own sister, who, by the way is reasonably intelligent, was trying to convince me the other day, that my cell phone is audio recording everything I say, even when it is turned off! She 100% believes this.
This nonsense is getting beyond ridiculous.
She might be partly right based on a quick google search.
https://us.norton.com/blog/how-to/is...t%20permission.
https://allaboutcookies.org/stop-you...from-listening
If governments collected the data and built profiles that the data collection companies like facebook and google do there would be public outrage.
Re Neo liberalism did the Chile experiment work? I thought it was a reasonably well-developed nation although Pinochet has been out of the picture for a while.
I thought Mussolini had said that Fascism was the merger of power between the State and Corporations but this may not have been strictly correct or applicable in this day and age.
https://politicalresearch.org/2005/0...orporate-state
That's different. It is common knowledge that in this day and age, a lot of what our devices do to "assist" us, requires collection of our browsing data etc. If we want to use Siri for example, we need to allow access to certain things. We can very easily turn that stuff off however.
My sister is talking about governments - yep, even ours - having hidden agendas, and eavesdropping on every conversation we have - even when our phones are turned off. Yeah right. It boggles my mind how so many people right now, have crazy ideas about secret agendas, humans being controlled by governments blah blah blah. It is bull****. Unless perhaps you live in Russia or China, but even then, I have my doubts.
Life is too short for these conspiracy theories. We have enough stress in our lives without buying into that crap.
A good question did the Chile experiment work. It depends on whether you are in the top 1% or not.
The economic policies of the Popular Unity Government in the early 1970s, which included nationalization of industries and land reform, led to a decline in domestic food production and a drastic reduction in food for the masses of the population. In 1975, the GDP fell by 13 percent, industrial production plunged by 27 percent, and unemployment increased to 20 percent. Additionally, inflation reached 375 percent in 1974, the highest rate in the world and almost twice the top level under Allende.
After a recession in 1975, the economy expanded from 1977 to 1980 with high growth rates, making Chile a showcase for monetarists and economic liberals. During the 1980s, Chile's economy experienced both growth and recession. In 1982, Chile slid into a severe recession that lasted more than two years, which was the second deep economic recession in eight years. Chile experienced the strongest economic growth of all countries in the region during the 1980s.
The 1990s were a period of vigorous and unprecedented expansion, with average annual growth of 7.2%.
The expansion of certain industries, such as the mining industry, has contributed to the growth of the Chilean economy. Chile's GDP per capita is the highest in the region at USD 14,772, but it also has high levels of inequality and informality. Inequality is a persistent challenge for Chile, with high levels of income inequality. Chile has the second-highest level of income inequality in the OECD. Almost half of Chile's wealth, 49.6 percent, is held by the top one percent, while the bottom 50 percent has a negative wealth.
Eastonia apparently has a centralised government info platform ……and Estonia has became a model for digital democracy has created economic opportunities for growth and resiliency.
This guy says something for NZ to aspire to
“ We need an aspirational vision from our politicians as we approach the elections”
https://garymersham.substack.com/p/w...al-vision-from
Your phone is an internet-connected microphone and camera(s). There have been a number of hacks that utilize those things, and some of those hacks have been by governments or government agencies. This also applies to non-phone devices with similar capabilities. Re "off" for various devices, there are differing types of "off", some of which have internet access and full capability either from the outset or after a received command.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElSdPYQFHHE
DAVID SEYMOUR on the VALUES we should have as KIWI's..
David Seymour in this interview says “Well first of all I think in terms of values for the country we need to start being a lot clearer about first of all there is an objective reality and there is universal humanity there's not different world views. There's one world and we're all part of it and we're all humans and we're all equally part of it.”
I don’t think there is much objective reality. Yes, physical objects such as rocks, trees, and buildings exist independently of any individual's perception of them. But I might think that a tree is beautiful or a nuisance and should be removed. Some scientific facts are objective, and although historical events such as wars occurred history can and is rewritten. My perception of a war comes from someone else’s interpretation.
If I was a disabled Maori woman my world view would be very different from David Seymour’s. My world view is that if ACT is elected it will not be good for NZ. David Seymour’s would that it will be great for NZ. It will be good for some people, but not good for all New Zealanders.
I agree we are all humans, but not that we are all equally part of one world. Someone living in their car has a different world view to a person living in a $3m house in a gated community.
I understand that. I do what I need to do, to limit the risk, on my own devices. But at the end of the day, we all have a choice. Which is what I told my sister. I suggested that if she is really that worried that the government is trying to control her via her phone, maybe she should stop using it. Pretty sure you can guess what her response was. I honestly do not understand how these conspiracy theorists get sucked into these irrational and completely unsubstantiated beliefs. What boggles my mind even more, is the fact that some of them are smart, intelligent people. I just don’t get it. Maybe some people are just genetically predisposed to being easily manipulated? The irony is that they are worried that governments are joining forces to gain “control” of the human race - but they have zero insight into the fact that they have been manipulated into believing these BS theories.
True, but I don’t live in the US and as I said, I have nothing to hide, no agenda, and literally nothing that any government would be even remotely interested in. What is it that governments are supposed to be looking for? How exactly are they attempting to “gain control over us?” I can’t speak for the US government, but the idea that global governments are banding together to “take control” of the human race, is ridiculous.
Lots of people don’t agree with David Seymour even though he says there's not different world views. Other people are just wrong he reckons.
Disruption and division: Seymour denies using beneficiaries, Māori as political punching bag (msn.com)
The political discourse is divided but Seymour says that's nothing to do with him.
"I don't take responsibility for the actions of other people that are wrong."
But he did of course double down on his co-governance schtick and pitched his referendum on the Treaty.
"We all matter," he said. "This country deserves a say on what the Treaty means."
He also pedalled Don Brash lines.
"Only one party stands on this principle of one Kiwi, one vote," Seymour said.
He also suggested people are being forced to use te reo Māori.
"The way to turn a treasure into a form of torture is to impose it on people by force, perhaps with the very best of intentions."
Seymour went for broke on the race debate whipping it up as the one issue on which to launch his campaign.