Particulrly if we keep bashing them and robbing them!
Printable View
Particulrly if we keep bashing them and robbing them!
BIRMANBOY you are just using the period that suits you. 14%of 100 million is a lot more than 16.6%of 50 million Please quote all figures over the whole period. My figures are for example only. Also if my memory is correct your breed is a manufactured breed.
Iceman and Fungus Pudding keep telling us " we don't know how lucky we are"
Perhaps we do and have no wish to go down the road National is following. John Key's vision is to turn Canterbury into a giant dairy farm and have a million Chinese tourists a year visit.
Then Iceman's children and friends can look forward to future employment prospects like milking cows, waiting in restaurants on tourists or even pulling rickshaws. Tourism is not a provider of many well paid jobs.
Westerly
Like you Westerly, that's what I can't handle about National: their dim-witted attitude to what constitutes a place worth living in. We need interesting jobs for all who want to work. Fair pay. Incomes that aren't too widely spread. A role for the State in evening out any oddball trends. To hold on to State Assets that have worked well for us in the past, and if possible make them even more profitable, now their purchase costs have been written off. To force the private sector to take on the bigger risks, not take the Nation's low-hanging fruit.
I've had a few beers now.
Just wondereing if anybody else finds this thread repetitive and boorish?
It's very clear what side of a very large wall everybody is standing on and I can't see anybody changing anyones minds.
Yet, I still look just to see how fundamentalist people are...
Thanks for that post Slimwin. I think it's great if people can see that there really is some difference in policies between National and Labour. Then the next problem is choosing a side, because National will never share the bench with Labour. It's all very well being centrist, but we don't have a party that sits there all the time.
I don't think you've posted on this thread for a month or so. In which case, your contributions are sorely needed, so we don't all get too repetitive. For my part, I'm still learning things before posting, so I'd hope I haven't added to a lacklustre theme. Maybe you think I'm boorish, but I'm not illiterate, rude, clownish, a peasant, rustic, churlish, loutish, a bumpkin, or ill-bred. Which implies that maybe you have chosen that particular word in error, Slimwin. :)
Quick google of boorish has proved it the wrong word. Apologies. Certainly not directed at anyone. I just don't see value in debate with out a result. I value debate though! Bored was probably what I was thinking.
I don't hold much cred with posting opinion articles from either side. That's what they are. Opinion.
I tend more right as I get older. From my work, more young people do to. Thats never going to mean much.
I would have thought learning implies having an open mind and not accepting opinion as fact though.
Well, perhaps a small dig there...
An apology was not really required Slimwin, but thanks for that.
When data does get put up on the thread, it has generally been more favourable to the previous Labour term of office, and it has been pointed out numerous times that the GFC occurred right at the end of 2008, the start of National's term. That has been unfortunate for NZ, as Labour's more Keynesian approach (in my opinion), would have helped us get through the following years a bit easier, as a group.
Those on the right have argued that these opportunities for some businesses to thrive while others fall into natural decay and are replaced, is healthy, and a sign of good market forces. I just wonder if anyone is doing the numbers on the worth of manufacturing businesses (in particular) as training facilities, as a much better option than the dole for tax revenue, as exporters, minimal users of land and water resources normally, and efficient users of capital.
In the SST today, there's a story on Tom Sturgess, who with other capital partners like Craig Heatley (Sky TV founder, Woosh etc) owns A&G Price, Electrical Supply Corp, Masport, Viking companies, NZ Insulators, Blue Star Group, Lone Star Farms, bought up the troubled Geon Assets, and others. He says that if the outputs look sexy, he won't look at them. (Think Moa Beer for example). Mr Sturgess has done well over the years, as you'd expect. The current exchange rate makes these companies hard to take a profit from at the moment, but that can change.
By stepping in where others have feared to tread, these proud established companies have been able to trade through, keeping their staff employed. That's what NZ needs (in my opinion), a commitment of capital to an enterprise which looks past the next year or three.
Hey, I just approved of one of your posts for the first time I think?
Any talk of who could have done better in the GFC is of course only speculation and that dreaded opinion word.
I have a lot of friends in Europe who are fund managers,bond traders etc. As one pointed out to me, our high currency is the sign of a strong economy and a nice problem to have.
May I just say how surprised I am that none of the usual suspects here has gone into battle against Maggie Thatcher.
The Times had a thoughtful article republished in NZ dailies pointing out that the divisions in UK society were much greater in the 20 years before Thatcher than they were in the 20 years after her. It noted that the Miners Union had completely overreached itself in demanding (a) that all pits be kept working no matter how uneconomic (b) that UK factories had to use the pits output no matter the price or subsidies involved and (c) the final straw came when the MU demanded a non-negotiable 35% wage increase just 2 years after getting another large increase.
Interesting also that the media on TV tonight pointed out that a large number of the protesters in the UK hadn't even been born when Maggie was in power...what does that say?