Sue B on poverty
Here’s a link to Sue B discussing the issue of poverty in New Zealand - if it’s really a problem and how bad it is - on Inspirationaltv.net, a Wellington-based videoblog run by a Christian group.
Bookmark to:
frogblog
hopping along the corridors of power
a political blog from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand
September 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
A question: where was that filmed? “Blame the System. Fight!”
SB: “They are a victim of what the system has done to them” ..people like the Kahuis.
A true Green person recognises that resources are limited and that economic growth can’t continue for ever. There may be some similarity between what an ecologist thinks needs to be done and a leftist. I tend to think however, that while the old left is trying to fit its analyses on the more contemporary thinking of the green movement (ie the limits to growth etc) their model is inappropriate/ archaic with its emphasis on capitalism alone as the sole villan.
The idea that capitailsm is behind every environmental problem including the world population is alive and well:
http://www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/index.htm
My point is that some of us have different paradigms and so will want to take different actions, with different effects [for instance Sue Bradfords model leaves no place for fault by beneficiary].
I think we can find solutions just using our common sense without the marxsists correcting lenses.
Over and out
Henry
September 6th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
poverty in new zealand is a choice. when the chooks in one tree hill are under threat, or we see benificarys putting gardens in freespace u can say things are getting tough. sue has taken 14 million of tax payers money to try and work against. my oppurtunity to make a living, i will perservere. this is the land of plenty there is no need for poverty.
cheers
September 6th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Which do you think nature HAS rewarded, sharing/co-operation or competition?
Which do you think personal capital profit rewards, sharing/co-operation or competition?
It’s easier to scam people than it is to miss out and help, which do you think our way of living encourages?
You can have as many different paradigms as you like, it’s still the same worn out old pantomine out of sync to nature’s beat when above is not properly balanced.
My last post here, bye!
September 7th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Poffa doesn’t seem to understand New Zealand - frist, food is comparatively cheap here, so poverty is more likely to be evident as over-crowded and sub-standard housing or inability to pay for electricity, medical treatment or education than a lack of basic food.
Second, in rich societies, the obvious answer to poverty is crime or semi-legal activities, which makes planting a garden in ‘free space’ a bit of a waste of time as you can be assured it’ll get ripped off. We have a few beneficiaries in our community gardening project, but the competitive neo-liberal culture people are brought up on doesn’t do much to steer people towards this sort of solution.
This song goes into this phenomenon in more depth, albeit from a British perspective: http://lyrics.mv4u.net/f/frank-turner/campire-punkrock/thatcher-fucked -the-kids.html
September 7th, 2006 at 11:55 am
from my understanding of life in godzone we have the cheapest electricity in the world, free education and free medicalcare. what i don’t understand is some peoples inability to grasp the knowledge that whatever we want in life is ours for the having.
Scientists Have Proven, You Can Use The Power of Your Mind To Create Wealth, Health, Romance,
or Anything Else You Desire …
its that simple all u have to do is have desire and act in the way that u would act when your dream is fulfilled.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Oh, I guess I’m living in some other New Zealand. Education and medical care aren’t free in this one.
I’ll take your advice on acting in the way I would act if my dreams were fulfilled next time I pass an expensive restaurant. I’ll see what the police have to say about my preferences for eating very well and not having to pay for meals.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
By the way, industrial issues seem to be off Frog’s finely tuned radar, but if you want to support people doing something about poverty, donations for the locked out Progressive workers can be made out to the National Distribution Union at 02-0200-0217968-00 with the reference “Lock Out”.
September 7th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I’m sure there is some poverty. The question is how much and why? I just doubt that Sue Bradford is objective. I have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to far leftists as perhaps a little bit touched with madness. When they are cocky about dissmantling the system I think: “God!, you must be clever!”. I agree that our community generally is in a sorry state, but that is because the state takes over at one end and consumerism and greed at the other.
Henry
September 7th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Henry et al:
All people in Society do not have the same levels of: intelligence, responsiblity, wealth, education, health, luck, etc etc.
Children are not responsible for the families they are born into, and as a Society we need to make sure that all our citizens have the all the basics for a worthwhile life. (If we don’t do this we diminish our own lives by creating an increasingly unequal society of “haves” and “have nots” … and one only needs to follow the World news or read history to see the problems that this can lead to: problems which impact directly or indirectly on everyone in that Society.)
There will always be some who will “rip off the system”: from some at the “needy” end of the spectrum, right through to the “have everything but still greedy” end. This seems to be part of some Humans’ Nature. Most people are more cooperative.
A “socialist” (or to use your label: “far leftist”) perspective is not hard to understand if one keeps asking the questions “What would it feel like to be in that person’s situation?” and “Realistically, what would I be able to do about it if I was that person, in that situation?”
Aotearoa/NZ has become a more unequal society (and in some ways a less caring one) since the adoption of “free market thinking”.
AS there really is “no such thing as a free lunch” someone needs to ensure that those who can’t afford it at least keep the means to ensure they and their families “get fed” or better still “retain the means to feed themselves” at the very least.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:46 am
eredwen Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
A “socialist� (or to use your label: “far leftist�) perspective is not hard to understand if one keeps asking the questions “What would it feel like to be in that person’s situation?� and “Realistically, what would I be able to do about it if I was that person, in that situation?�
I think some who may be considered right wing think like that. But maybe would come to different conclusions about how to fix it. I sympathise with your socialist aims but I would rather work within the present system. My feeling is that we could make big improvements. I think we are stuck with a market economy as profits provide a signal as to what to produce, how to produce it and when to produce it. I don’t think there is any utopia.
Henry
September 8th, 2006 at 8:22 am
could someone please tell us/explain to us.. why the green party is flat-out opposed to any rationalisations of aucklands bloated local government..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Poffa
“Scientists Have Proven, You Can Use The Power of Your Mind To Create Wealth, Health, Romance,
or Anything Else You Desire …”
As someone with a keen interest in science, I am always willing to keep abreast with the latest scientific developments. I was wondering if you could therefore kindly provide me with the peer reviewed journal references written by sceintists who have proved your claim above. It must make fascinating reading. My understanding of science is that it is very difficult to actually “prove” anything, so the evidence must certainly be convincing and it is a pity I missed it.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:02 am
“I agree that our community generally is in a sorry state, but that is because the state takes over at one end and consumerism and greed at the other.”
Totally agree with this, even though I’d probably be dubbed a “far leftist” by most. Actually, I feel like I’m politically in the centre, with the state’s trenches on one side and capitalism’s on the other, lots of rusty barbed wire and rats eating the corpses.
Profits do provide a signal of what to produce - just not a very good one. Apart from the externalities that are well-known to greenies, there is constant skewing of market signals from the influence of large and powerful bodies such as states and large corporates. Have a look at the futures markets and how they affect profits - they certainly don’t follow consumer signals. (For example, if some rich investor in the US thinks that other people are expecting a war in Iran, they will bet on the price of oil going up - doing this then sends a signal that people think the price oil is going to go up, which makes the price of oil go up - then the price of petrol goes up even though there’s no increase in demand or dimunition of supply. Crazy? Not according to the logic of the market).
September 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Henry: “A true Green person recognises that resources are limited and that economic growth can’t continue for ever”
No, Henry - imo a true Green person recognises that economic growth is limited, and unsustainable economic growth can’t continue forever. If it’s gobbling up finite natural resources that is driving economic growth, that growth has to be curtailed. But I don’t see harm from economic growth driven by utilisation of renewable and recyclable resources.
Henry: “I’m sure there is some poverty. The question is how much and why? I just doubt that Sue Bradford is objective.”
You might doubt whether the Ministry of Social Development is objective too (I sometimes do), but some idea of the extent of poverty can be gleaned from their Living Standards report. That report shows that, according to MSD criteria, some 24% of the population live in some hardship, with 9% experiencing severe hardship and 8% experiencing significant hardship. What’s more, the report indicates an increase of 3% between 2000 and 2004 in those experiencing severe hardship.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:41 am
phil u: “could someone please tell us/explain to us.. why the green party is flat-out opposed to any rationalisations of aucklands bloated local government..?”
I think the reasons are spelled out clearly in Sue Bradford’s media release on the topic.
The way I read it, the Greens are not opposed to rationalising the bureaucracy of Auckland’s local Government, but what this proposal is about is rationlising the democracy of Auckland’s local Government. The supercity approach will just result in elected local representatives becoming even more removed from the communities they are supposed to be representing, and more power being concentrated in the hands of those with money and authority at the expense of the ordinary Aucklander.
September 8th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
toad Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 11:24 am
You might doubt whether the Ministry of Social Development is objective too (I sometimes do), but some idea of the extent of poverty can be gleaned from their Living Standards report. That report shows that, according to MSD criteria, some 24% of the population live in some hardship, with 9% experiencing severe hardship and 8% experiencing significant hardship. What’s more, the report indicates an increase of 3% between 2000 and 2004 in those experiencing severe hardship.
Thanks for that. It would be interesting to know what is behind those figures. Even intelligent people get into financial difficulty etc. You’ve got me interested. I wonder to what extent it is their fault/ societys/ government policies fault.
Henry
September 8th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
what bullshit..!..(cover your ears/eyes stuey)
show me one ‘elected official close to their community..’.(apart from election time..)
or any other of the waffly examples you cite..
“at the expense of the ordinary aucklander”..indeed..
(the way i see it..that describes the current model..)
i went and read the press release…and it is a classic example of the ideolgical parylsis of the greens…
what that release says to me is..
“leftwinger mike lee has ‘control of the auckland regional authority…and this proposal would do away with the need for this body..
therefor the greens oppose any reforms..”
(tell me how it isn’t so..eh..?..)
the rest of it is just ‘flannel’ to justify that stance..
how the feck can the greens have any credibility with this sort of tripe coming out as a press release/stance..?
how can they have any credibility with the voters when they oppose reforming an arena screaming for reform…
sue..should we bring back the mt eden and mt albert mayors/councils..?
y’know..to protect the needs of minorities..?
good grief..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Phil, I suspect that Sue would be the first to admit that there is a serious need for reform in Auckland local government - but not the sort of reform that the Mayors are proposing.
The problem you cite of elected officials not being close to their communities (except at eletion time) is only likely to be exacerbated by the reforms proposed by the Mayors.
How about reforms that go the other way - giving real power to community boards to address the issues that are relevant to their communities, rather than just the powers that TLAs think fit to delegate to them, and dealing with only with planning for city-wide issues such as transport on a city-wide basis. Add in STV voting to the mix as well, and you might get some semblance of democracy.
The record of unitary councils is very poor - just look at Gisborne, which has an appalling record re sewage disposal and other environmental issues.
It’s got nothing to do with the fact that the ARC is currently (slightly) left-leaning. It could be controlled by Tories at the next election - heaven forbid - but there are too many conflicts of interest if the environmental planning functions of Regional Councils are carried out by the same Council as is being lobbied by various business interests to press ahead with various developments - that is the recipe for an Auckland urban area with no boundaries whatsoever.
September 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Kiore 1
So ive been sprung i cant remember the guy who said it and exactly what he said but its basicly that what ever the mind can consieve man can achieve so i googled visualization and cut and pasted the 1st headline that suited me i didn’t read further. to really upset the scientificaly proven is necessary applecart i will tell u that i am a believer in the unprovable force that is mindpower,prana,zen,chi,orgone, depending on who u read and have faith in its ability to impact on our future.
to Sam in the NZ i’m in when i was ill, my life was saved i have had 5yrs of life that without medical intervention i would not have had and its cost me nothing ,nil ,not a cent. i have done drug trials and given back in whatever way possible to the system that keeps me alive,but have paid nothing. that is free medical care.
further if u desire to eat in expensive resturants understand that is a reward for behaving in a certain way (earning good money) so if that is what u desire then acting in that way will provide the income to pay the bill. because eating there without the effort to obtain the reward will land you in trouble. personally im happy with the food hall so work at the level that provides me with the means to cover this.
cheers
September 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
toad..please detail for me the benefits of retaining seven(!) councils..and their attendant duplicated layers of beaurocrats…(duplicated seven times..(!)..
as against the proposed three councils..
and yes..of course..i concede it will be a delicate process to ‘get the mix right’..vis a vis environmental/local representation issues..and ..and…
as in focussing/giving due care/attention to the environmental issues in particular..
but that is a reason not to do it..?
and sorry..i just don’t accept that ‘given’ in many green circles that “everyone except the left/labour party is an environmental visigoth..”
(i think we’ve all moved on from that..eh..?…)
and i mean..just look at that statement..and then reflect on the actual environmental realities of this labour government..
it ain’t pretty..eh..?..
(and bordering on delusional/farcical to pretend otherwise…)
and of course the a.r.c. should ‘go!”..once again because of beaurocratic fat/duplication…
it is not needed..
and this current system does not bloody work…
the various competing(!) bodies cannot agree to cross the road at the same time..
meanwhile we have inaction/paralysis…and a deteriorating city/environment..
i tell you what mate…!..
the greens are on a road to nowhere with this one/attitude..
(and i was gobsmacked to read that press release..
did it/does it have caucus support..?
or was it a unilateral/kneejerk reaction..?
‘cos that is sure as hell how it reads….)
this has ‘legs’..and will recieve wide public support…and already has the ‘nod’ from her who must be obeyed..?..
the public can see we do not need seven mayors and councils..!
and it is dispiriting/demeaning to see my favourite political party being so recalcitrant…
please think on..!
imagine if all those resources were directed where they should go..?..eh..?
whoar..!..
and a more focussed direction/directing of resources..?
double-whoar..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
and of course there other contexts/facets..
this could be called “the mayors revenge”..eh..?
against those meddlesome ‘minor mayors’..
against the a.r.c…(an irritant in their lives…eh..?..)
and last ..but definitly not least..
revenge against all those smug/complacent/’secure’ beaurocrats they have had to ‘wrestle’ with ..
what a master-stroke..eh..?
just do away with the lot of them..!..cor..!
(time to dig out/dust off the c.v….eh..?…lads and lasses..?..)
(i do love the smell of ‘burning beaurocratic fat’ in the morning..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 8th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Phil - Read my post - I didn’t say we need seven different Mayors and Councils, and I didn’t see Sue saying that in her media release either. Don’t put words into our mouths.
I agree with you that there is a lot wrong with the current system. I just disagree that the approach being put forward by the Mayors is going to do anything to improve it, and fear it may make it worse. Indicative of their arrogance is that they took it to “her who must be obeyed” before they even consulted with their own councillors, let alone the people who elected them. This is the very antithesis of what democratic process is about.
An the fact that it has the nod from “her who must be obeyed” is another good reason to be very, very suspicious.
September 8th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
fwog i forgets to say that we have to designate the moon for waste product fwwog, it a tough call but we have to do it,
September 8th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
To return to the main theme, equality is not, never has been and never will be a problem (except for the envious among us, of which there seem to be plenty). Some here might find this hard to believe, but I’ve never lost any sleep over the fact that Bill Gates has several orders of magnitude more money than me.
Poverty, of course, is an entirely different issue and something that does concern me. Fortunately we live in a relatively rich country where there is no poverty. Politicians, of course, know that they can buy their way to power by pandering to people’s envy and indulging in widespread plundering of other people’s money to buy support. However, envy is not the same thing as poverty.
>>> “Children are not responsible for the families they are born into”
Quite so, and that extends to the nationality of the family they are born into - something which has *far* more influence on their wellbeing and their prospects than the insignificant differences in wealth experienced in NZ. Why does your compassion for children stop at some arbitrary national border? Why take the time to assure us of your compassion for children in NZ who lack broadband but display complete indifference towards the multitudes dying of easily-curable conditions in other parts of the world?
>>> “A “socialistâ€? (or to use your label: “far leftistâ€?) perspective is not hard to understand if one keeps asking the questions “What would it feel like to be in that person’s situation?â€? and “Realistically, what would I be able to do about it if I was that person, in that situation?â€?
Actually it *is* hard to understand unless you are willing to pursue this argument to its logical conclusion and ask “what would it be like to be born into grinding and absolute poverty”, irrespective of national borders. Unless you do that you are not putting forward a moral argument; all you are doing is trying to justify what are in fact relatively rich people stealing money from those who happen to be slightly more rich.
It is beyond dispute that the money the state currently redistributes within NZ could be spent to far, far more effect if it were redirected to the genuinely poor in Africa and Asia. How many millions of lives could that same money actually save? And how many millions more could it transform?
So what you are advancing here is not a “socialist” argument but a nationalistic one. That being the case, we can probably lose the crocodile tears. Unless your compassion extends to *everyone* then you are a simply a bigot and I really don’t want bigots stealing my money and spending it according to their own prejudices or to advance their grubby political ambitions.
>> “they will bet on the price of oil going up - doing this then sends a signal that people think the price oil is going to go up, which makes the price of oil go up”
Complete nonsense of course. If speculators have any effect it is to moderate price swings, since they will sell when the price is high and buy when the price is low.
September 8th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
toad ..pray tell how it will “make things worse”…?
(u cd be accused of having an attack of the ‘cassandra’s’..eh..?.)
and what reforms would you recommend..in their place…?
‘cos the current inertia/deadlock can’t remain..eh..?
and as for your complaints about how it was announced…however valid they may be..they are really a red herring/side issue…eh..?
and i assume toad is a alias for a green m.p…?
given your “words in our mouths’”reference…?
(and male…not nandor..not keith..
hello russell..!!..where have ye been..?..
we were thinking about sending out a search party…)
(whatever)..if so..you must be aware this is an area where green ideas must have major traction…at the local govt level…
and perhaps the most disturbing question has to be…
why do we not have cogent ideas/blueprints for those reforms..?
why are the greens caught on the hop on this..?
it has been ten or so feckin’ years ..eh..?
and believe me…the impatience i am displaying at green party apparent inertia/impotence are felt by many…
i mean..you’ve had all this time on the pot…
how about some action…?
and given as her who must be obeyed is for it…and you have been in thrall to her and her ideas/policies for sometime..
why the sudden disquiet over this..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 9th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Mouldwarp:
Interesting choice of name! Is your answer a spoof (which the name implies)? … or are you seriously advancing your arguments? If so, they are “full of holes” … and (most importantly) the insults (direct and implied) among those holes make me reluctant to answer you seriously.
To sum up your post in your own words: “Complete nonsense of course.”
( Though to be fair, I’d amend that to “Too much of it is complete nonsense of course”!
If you can lose your “superiority complex”, methinks your posts would be more welcome here!
Kia ora!
eredwen
September 9th, 2006 at 1:08 am
phil u: answers to selected bits from your (current) various raves:
iriting/demeaning to see my favourite political party being so recalcitrant… please think on..! “NICE TO KNOW YOU CARE” !
anwhy are the greens caught on the hop on this..?
“ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OUR BELOVED FROG” ?
and believe me…the impatience i am displaying at green party apparent inertia/impotence are felt by many… how about some action…?
“JOIN IN AND BE PART OF THAT ACTION”!
Kia Ora!
eredwen
September 9th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
eredwen..i answered this…
the big green censorship machine kicked in..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 9th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
btw..anyone interested in the auckland local govt reforms should go to the tvnz website..and click on agenda..
you’ll hear christchurch mayor gary moore speaking sense..
and curtis and harvey like a pair of door-to-door salesman…
and you come away with a clear focus that we only need one mayor..and one council….
(not the three plus another version of a regional council as proposed by this lot..)
and brisbane is the example for us to look to..
it used to be like us..multiple mayors/councils..and a mess..going nowhere..councils unable to agree on anything..massive waste of resources..
(all sound familiar..?..)
and lots and lots of beaurocratic ‘fat’…
ten years ago they year zeroed the lot of them..
replaced with one council…one mayor..
and the city now works..
so..get lobbying eh..?
as in “nice idea..dosen’t go quite far enough tho’..”
but ..as was noted elsewhere…
turkeys don’t vote for their own thanksgiving dinner..do they..?
and that title of ‘lord mayor’ must be alluring…
(mind you..i would favour harvey in that role..you only have to look at what he has done in waitakere to see what he could do for auckland..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 10th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
“economic growth can’t continue forever” — pong
“a true Green person recognises that economic growth is limited, and unsustainable economic growth can’t continue forever.” — toad
An excellent point, toad.
Greens recognise the hard, cold logic that limited resources and unlimited economic growth can’t easily go together. Various anti-green types (Rodney Hide is the classic example) take those claims by greens and say that the Green Party is anti-economic growth.
But we can have both. We can both improve our economy, AND survive the brutal fact that the world’s resources are limited. But only if we put in a lot of bloody hard work refocussing our economy. Moving from taxing good things (like income) to taxing bad things (pollution) is a start in that direction.
Greens aren’t the anti-growth party, they are the smart-growth party.
September 10th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Growth is a funny old thing. Queenstown has grown and is worth so much more but isn’t as good.
I’ve been reading stuff by a Dr Richbacher and if he is correct (he’s an old school, no bull-shit economist) the US economy is badly missmanaged and the excess liquidity has led to the biggest bubble in house prices ever.. Over all society suffers. I doubt that we are much different.
Henry
September 10th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
“Why does your compassion for children stop at some arbitrary national border? ”
Uh, Mouldwarp, the Greens also want to increase NZ’s international aid programme. Wanting to do more to fight poverty in NZ doesn’t conflict at all with also wanting to do more to fight poverty world-wide.
“there is no poverty in New Zealand”
You are free to use that word “poverty” to mean “starving to death” if you want, in which case that claim is true. But there are kids growing up in some really badly-off families, and they tend to end up with much worse educational outcomes, worse health, shorter lives, etc, than the rest of us. We can do better as a nation, and we can afford to.
But I think it’s right that “poverty” is a relative standard. My grandad left school after form 2 to work on the road gang with his dad, because the family needed the money (he had 7 younger siblings to help support). Their house certainly wouldn’t pass health standards today - no running water, no power, 9 kids in not much space. These days we’d consider that shocking poverty. But that’s because we are a much richer nation than when he left school to work building roads in 1917: these days we can do better for our kids.
September 10th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Having Kids On Welfare A Growing Trend
Thursday, 31 August 2006, 3:24 pm
Press Release: Lindsay Mitchell
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Having Kids On Welfare A Growing Trend
Latest parliamentary questions have revealed that 27,219 DPB clients had added one or more children to their benefit at June 2006, according to welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell.
“The previous Minister of Social Development, Steve Maharey, refused to support the view that the DPB is a lifestyle choice for many young women because there was no research to support it.”
“The fact that thousands of women continue to grow their families courtesy of the taxpayer is evidence aplenty that the DPB has become a lifestyle.”
“Maharey’s refusal to acknowledge the statistics is partly why the number has shot up from 23,160 in October 2004. The habit appears to be catching.”
“It’ll be interesting to see if current Minister, David Benson-Pope will continue with this blinkered approach to a growing problem. We can afford neither the social nor financial costs associated with thousands upon thousands of fatherless children.”
“It is a negligent government that refuses to address this issue.”
Source PQ 8548 (2006), PQ15992 (2004)
ENDS
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0608/S00372.htm
This concerns me, not just the cost to taxpayers but the principle.
Henry
September 10th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Henry:
I agree that this is a concerning problem, but, as with a lot of human behaviour, it is also a very complex and dificult one.
As an “oldie” who remembers the situation before the DPB was made available, I think that this badly needed Benefit serves its purposes well. It was specifically designed to overcome the serious and ongoing problems and inequalities, created for some vulnerable members of our society, (often by others not taking responsibility for their actions.)
Several factors:
First of all every child has two parents.
Obviously it would be better if unplanned children were not conceived.
(Either partner can reliably ensure that conception cannot take place.)
Many unwanted embryos/fetuses are aborted, but this requires an appropriate belief, a timely decision, access to safe care, and, for some women, a huge (and often ongoing) emotional cost.
MANY children who grow up with mothers (or fathers) on the DPB become exellent citizens in a country that officially thinks it needs a larger population.
Some mothers give up their babies for adoption to/by those unable to have their own children. However, this can be an emotional “lifetime sacrifice” for birth mothers, and for some of the “adoptees”.
Most parents who go on the DPB are able to give the name of the other parent (or potential parent(s)) of the child/ren to the Department. How much that other parent contributes is worked out between the liable parent and the Department in confidence. Sometimes it is the entire amount.
(For privacy reasons, the recipient parent is not consulted or informed on this matter.)
This system is also used by parents whose relationships break up later.
I also remember the disfunctional families (or seriously abused women and traumatised children) when unhappy couples were forced to stay together for financial reasons.
The DPB statisitics also include all the working parents who get small “top-ups” to an inadequate wage … They also are “tax payers”!
The Department helps parents to improve their qualifications and seek work when appropriate/available.
The DPB statisitics also include those who stay home to look after a disabled, or elderly, or infirm, relative … the alternative woulds be large impersonal (and costly) institutions.
Before we look at “the COST to the tax payer” it would be a god idea to think of the cost to all people involved, including society, before the DPB was made available.
For those who do not want their tax money to be used for the DPB: Are you willing to pay for other people’s education? healthcare? retirement income? …
Where do you draw the line?
September 10th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
One other thing I left out.
From my experience, which may be out of date, when a sole parent is unemployed (s)he is put on the DPB rather than Unemployment Benefit for reasons of “add ons” etc .
This way, with erratic working hours while gradually moving back into the WorkForce, the DPB can be used as a “top-up”, getting smaller as employment increases. The recipient would still appear in the statisitics as a DPB beneficiary. Similarly, some Tertiary/Secondary students in “second chance” situations would be in receipt of the DPB.
As a tertiary teacher, I worked with a lot of sole parents who were committed to “bettering their qualifications” and thus future job prospects for the sake of their children.
I believe that this is one of the big answers to the problem. It is natural for a parent to want to give their kid(s)the best chances they can.
Of course, initially, it means spending more tax payers’ money, not less!
September 10th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Eredwen, it isn’t the cost to the taxpayer that worries me so much, it just seems screwy. On the one hand you have solid gold cases, and women have a drive to have a baby but it seems a little like injuring yourself so you can ride in an ambulance. I perhaps have a bit of a fear of a degenerate class of people developing. If we need more people we could pay single men with no prospects to have vasectomies and pay students a fee to pump up single mothers. That would raise the average IQ.
Henry
September 10th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
phil u said: …. “the big green censorship machine kicked in..”
Poor old phil !
Sometimes you seem determined to be a “victim” rather than a “legend in your own mind”!
I, for one, appreciate your contributions … though sometimes I can’t work out what you are referring to, and thus what it is that you are saying!
September 10th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Henry said:
“I perhaps have a bit of a fear of a degenerate class of people developing. If we need more people we could pay single men with no prospects to have vasectomies and pay students a fee to pump up single mothers. That would raise the average IQ.”
I empathise with your train of thought. However, that sounds uncomfortably like the eugenics which led the Germans down a slippery slope in the 1930s !
1. I think, with your solutions, the “communal purse” could well be asked to fork out for a lot of lawsuits and vascetomy-reversal operations in the future!
2. Homo sapiens is resilient. Our intelligence is complex, carried on a lot of different genes, and “tends towards the norm” (from both directions) … with “nurture” as well as “nature” important in the process.
3. I think we must find positive rather than negative solutions to the problems:
Let’s work harder at giving our girls interesting and realistic alternatives. .
In part, we are dealing with Polynesian cultures which, until Christian missionaries interfered:
1. Were, and (in this respect) still are, Matriarchal.
2. Had a higher rate of child mortality which demanded reproduction to keep the populaton viable etc.
Once death control changes the balance, and when individuals learn to expect more from their individual lives, family sizes decrease.
(eg: My father born 1908 came from a family of fourteen. Two generations later our average family size is closer to two, which is “below replacement”.)
This trend tends to “mirror” in all our different cultures in Aotearoa/NZ. Some may take longer than others …
We just need to put the resources there to help, and let the individuals make their own (educated) decisions!
For girls who “love babies”, working with other people’s children (eg at various levels in “child care” and “early childhood education” depending on their academic abilities) can give them a satisfying career.
I have had the experience of succesfully “breaking the cycle” by doing just that! And when they are ready, they make much better mothers, can augment their incomes, and help others in their local community.
“WIN, WIN, WIN!”
(I’ve remet some of my former students and found that instead of the average of “six children” they had aspired to, “two” was the norm. Also they were married, and worked part or full time in Child Care Centres etc.)
I suspect we should throw (more) money at the problem … but in a different way!
September 10th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
purely a note eredwen..purely a note..telling you i had attempted to answer yours’..(nothning more..nothing less..)
a victim of what..?
others are victims of me eredwen…eh..?…words as weapons..eh..?
‘tho i do find it quite interesting how frog and extreme righties sir humphreys’ are the two political blogs who censor political comment on a regular basis..
(and both won’t tolerate criticisms of their ideas/policies.(!)
go figure..eh..?
but as far as being upset/victimised by that …i am surprised..(y’know..small niceties like free speech…and what are they scared of..eh..?..)
but i really couldn’t give a flying feck…
(so so far from your perceived victomhood..)
and as far as the amount of energies currently being put into frog..i’m not sure why they are bothering…
what could/should have been an exciting forum for/of green ideas..has largely become a matter of readers treated with contempt with one or two posts a week..
consequently attendant energies have largely receded to a blah-fest for the bj’s of this world…
frog is rapidly becoming irrelevant..
with greens scared(?) to question any of the current ‘givens’..
bit sad really..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 10th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Poffa
So in other words scientists have not proved anything of the sort. By your own admission, your thesis taht we can have what ever we wish for is unprovable, ie simply a matter of faith. It actually sounds to me suspiciously like prosperity doctrine, ie the doctrine that God rewards the righteous with wealth, and if anyone is poor they must be a miserable sinner. I have noticed people with this view find the apostle James an embarrassment. James’ rhetoric about the poor labourers being cheated of their rightful wages by the rich owner is indistinguishable from that of a modern socialist or anarchist. People with the prosperity doctrine view or its secular equivalent also pass lightly over the lives of such people as Jesus Christ who certainly trusted and obeyed God, and were killed in nasty ways for their reward.
September 11th, 2006 at 8:34 am
kiore 1, not really prosperity doctrine its just the idea that we get what we want and strive for, prosperity, poverty its our choice.there is a saying ive heard that becarful what you wish for cause your bond to get it, in my experience as a kid i wanted to use drugs, 30yrs later here i am breakfast, lunch and tea. i return to my original statement, poverty is a choice we as individuals make either counsciously or not, but we also have within us the power to modify this choice and live another sort of life.
September 11th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Phil, I can’t speak for Sir Humphrey’s, but you are wrong to assert that this blog “censors political comment on a regular basis”. We very rarely delete comments, and then not for political content, only in line with our guidelines:
- Comments which are defamatory or potentially defamatory.
- Comments that attack others in a grossly offensive way. Humour and sarcasm are fine, but attacks which seek to personally denigrate others are not.
- Comments which use extremely vulgar language.
Your recent comment was held in moderation over the weekend, but I have no problem reproducing it now, with a caveat.
I can confirm that Phil was asked not to renew his Green Party membership because of ongoing behaviour which made life very difficult for his local branch.
Cheers,
frog
(The comment that Phil alleges was censored is reproduced in full below)
eredwen..there is ..of course..involuntary humour to be had from your last exhortation…to ‘join in’..
given that keith locke..richard green ..and various others…
got the oldest(?) lady in the auckland greens (and a very nice lady) to phone me to tell me that i am not allowed to (re)-join the greens…and that they would block any attempts on my part to do so…
(and how is that for an example of testicular fortitude on their part..eh..?..as in choice of messanger…?..
ya gotta respect them..eh..?)
now…this wasn’t that long after rod died/new leadership etc…..so i just let it lie…(figuring you all had enough on your plate..)
but…now that you bring it up…of course i know/knew they have/had no legal(?) right to do that…
and i think soon willl be the time to challenge that…eh..?
whaddayareckon eredwen…?
can i count on your support..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
btw eredwen..i am surprised at your descriptions of my words/concerns as my “..(current) favourite rave..”)
number one..it is not a rave..(i am not just ‘having fun’ as i do in many other comments..)..
these are genuine issues for the greens…crucial issues…(ignored at their peril..)
number two…it’s not “(current)”..i have been banging on about this (greens/local govt.) for years…
(poss one reason for ‘banning’..?..eh..?..but just one of ‘many’..eh..?..)
chrs..phil
September 11th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Phil U says:
got the oldest(?) lady in the auckland greens (and a very nice lady) to phone me to tell me that i am not allowed to (re)-join the greens…and that they would block any attempts on my part to do so…
What did u do?
H
September 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there laws against child neglect? These seem to be applied solely to the carer (in single-parent families that would be largely mothers). Perhaps we should just criminalise non-supporting fathers?
I suspect bringing such fathers to justice would cost the taxpayer a lot more than the DPB, but it seems more just.
“If speculators have any effect it is to moderate price swings, since they will sell when the price is high and buy when the price is low.”
Only if they’re not very good at playing the stockmarket. The trick is to hold in a rising market and sell somewhere near a peak. If you sold oil shares when the stuff was $30 a barrel on the grounds that the price was high, you’d have missed out on a lot of money. The point is that prices aren’t ‘high’ or ‘low’ as there is no reference point other than what other people believe. There is a ‘natural’ price for a commodity as defined by Adam Smith - cost of production plus cost of capital plus reasoable profit. Which would make a high price for Middle East oil anything above about $15 a barrel. Feel free to sell me some oil at that price anytime you like.
September 11th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
unsure henry..unsure…you’d have to ask others…(u cd email richard green and ask him…i’d be interested to hear the answer..if u cd b bothered…)
as you cd possibly tell from my postings i have a habit of going..”um..there appears to be an elephant in the room..”
and people can tire of that..eh..?..
i don’t suffer fools that gladly..and can have an abrupt/dismissive take on ideas i think are silly…
and people can tire of that..eh..?
i can also vigorously argue with someone about something..but don’t lug a grudge from there on in…
i find others don’t do that…
and people can tire of that ..eh..?
that’s about what i can come up with…(apart from those with just a visceral dislike of me..of course…there is always them to contend with..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
i actually answered henry before seeing frog had un-moderated that response…
next question..of course..why am i ‘moderated’..?
and frog said…
“..I can confirm that Phil was asked not to renew his Green Party membership because of ongoing behaviour which made life very difficult for his local branch….”
i love the ‘ongoing behaviour which made life very difficult..”..
(sounds like shorthand for what i said..eh..?)
and least anyone think the whole of the auckland green party voted to bar/ban me…
no..no..no…five or six at the most..but in key positions..(and with some parliamentary backing..)
and ’till now..none of those other ak greens…many of whom worked closely with me/saw the work i did… over the years…would have known about this banning…
btw..i wd like to officially waive any legal redress..’cos i wd really really like to know what that ‘difficult’ making ‘ongoing behaviour’ was..eh..?
oh..!..ya gotta feckin’ laugh..eh..?..
(i’m having flashbacks to school reports…and believe me..i can hardly type this i’m chuckling so hard…
could we throw in a “..could do much better”..?..just to round it off..?..ta..!.)
and i mean..it’s obvious no critiques of the ak greens are needed..?..eh..?
the crew that’s been running it since forever have made such a raging success of it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
No need for paranoia Phil, your comment ended up in moderation because it used the word “testicular”. Our filter holds any comment which mentions genitalia. (I’m really not out to get you Phil, I promise).
Can I suggest that you take this issue up some other way than via this blog? Unfortunately I can’t answer your concerns and it doesn’t seem appropriate or useful to discuss party administration in this forum.
September 11th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
This is for Phil_u: (others feel free to read this if you want to)
Thanks for that background info … Different people, different backgrounds, different expectations …
Communicating is NOT an “exact” science, and is made more difficult when the recipient is unknown and unseen. (When we can see the other person’s reactions, we can adapt our message to suit.)
As a sensitive female “old fossil” I still find blog messages can be very abrasive, in a medium normally frequented by (young?) males, with all that testosterone, and attendant “pissing contests” and pack behaviour etc, and with “sensitivity” dials set on “zero”!)
However, frogblog is usually MUCH better (in fact it can be great!) and when it isn’t, I put on my “Communications Tutor” hat and try to “communicate” that fact! (UNHEARD OF on most blogs I suspect … but my kids are independent adults now, and no longer need to be “EMBARRASSED” by their mother’s behaviour!)
Anyway, I’m sure you could sort out a few “ground rules” with the Auckland Greens if you all tried? It takes at least two to communicate and when there is a breakdown both/all “sides” need to sort out their contributions to the problem(s).
I suggest a support person trusted by “both sides” ?
If I was there I’d be happy to help, but I’m one of “Rod’s Mob” in Banks Peninsula /Christchurch Greens /Aoraki Province … (and we are a very friendly and inclusive lot, if I may say so!)
Best wishes !!
eredwen (= “mountain woman”) … who taught Communications (among other things) at ChCh Polytechnic for “20 years”!
September 11th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
point taken re moderation frog..cheers..and no..i don’t think you are out to ‘get me’(whatever that may mean)…(the thought never crossed my mind)
and the subject only came up as the only honest response from a challenge laid down by eredwen…to ‘get active’..
(and you (a frog) did censor me before when i tried to say much the same as what i said in the ‘moderated’ comment above..eh…?..)
(i think on the grounds i was ’slandering’ (auckland green party convenor) richard green..and keith locke..by talking of their actions/moves..)
but sheesh..! what must they have been saying about me..eh..?..
whoar..!
but you do raise an interesting point…
if i wanted to get this silliness ’sorted’…(which i do..)
if not here..just who/where should i raise it..?
where can i challenge this verdict from this (impromptu) kangeroo court..(with the defendant absent..and unaware of the/any(?) charges…)…?
(only told the verdict/outcome after the event..)
and any doubt it was not orchestrated could be allayed by the fact all email communications from the auckland greens ceased at the same time..
this area of the auckland greens was/is(?) under the control of keith lockes’ partner….
this exercise in democracy/justice/good practice….pretty much ’sucks’ on every level..eh..?..(however ‘annoying’ i may be..)
cheers…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2006 at 10:02 am
eredwin,
Bluster and denial do not constitute an argument.
If you are going to steal from people’s earnings to help the poor then at least spend it where it will do the most good. There is no earthly reason - other than venal political self-interest - why potential recipients should have to be on the NZ voting register in order to be eligible for a handout.
It is indisputable that the money currently redistributed within NZ could do far, far more good if it were channeled to the genuinely poor in Africa and Asia who, as you pointed out, are not responsible for what family they were born into. It is disgusting that, for example, taxpayers are forced to pay for other people’s obesity treatment in NZ when that money could probably feed ten times the number of people if spent abroad.
How can you in conscience support what is in effect a policy of redistribution from the wealthy to the ever-so-slightly less wealthy, completely ignoring those condemned to a life of dire poverty?
Leaving aside the point that stealing is wrong and that redistribution is therefore wrong, and allowing for a moment that the practise is going to continue, what would constitute a defensible policy?
I suggest that each worker should be free to choose where the money forcibly taken from them is spent. They could select any registered charities, operating anywhere in the world. If they want to pay for obesity treatement for some of New Zealand’s gluttons, so be it. If they want to feed, clothe and educate ten times that number of people abroad, that would be okay as well.
Of course, that’s never going to happen; not for moral reasons but because we all know that, when all the niceties and pretences are dropped, redistribution within NZ has nothing to do with morality and everying to do with mob rule, legalised theft and political ambition. It is a mechanism of corrupt political patronage pure and simple.
icehawk,
Probably half the world’s population would jump at the chance to live and work in NZ, even with no eligibility for state allowances, so don’t let’s pretend that NZ’s “poor” are anything but life’s lottery winners. If I refuse to pander to them it’s because I’m not a self-interested, morally-challenged politician.
As for increasing the size of the foreign aid budget, the state has no business whatsoever operating any such program - not least because these funds almost invariably get spent with a cynical political imperative rather than a humanitarian one, and because they are performed with the usual incompetence and inefficiencies inherent in all centrally-planned spending.
It is *always* a bad idea when politicians argue that they should take more of your money. Public Choice Theory explains so much of what happens when politicians and bureaucracies make spending decisions. It’s not just that centrally-planned spending is inherently inefficient, it’s that these groups have entirely their own agendas which are only occasionally coincidental with the public good. The result - policies and spending driven by pure self-interest, combined with gross inefficiency - is why it is *never* a good idea for the state to receive more than the bare minimum necessary to deliver public goods such as roads and police. Anything else and all you get is an ever-increasing amount of workers’ money being confiscated for the benefit of special interest groups (politicians being one of those groups, of course).
September 12th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Mouldwarp
I believe you lost any lingering traces of respect when you named somebody a ‘bigot’. You shouldn’t expect any sensible replies, and you definitely shouldn’t take the lack of replies as evidence of the rightness of your arguments.
And for the record, any ‘argument’ that starts with the premise ’stealing is wrong’, with no mention of the implicit assumption that ‘taxation is stealing’, is not going to really gather much interest.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mouldwarp Says:
September 12th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Leaving aside the point that stealing is wrong and that redistribution is therefore wrong,
I wonder if there are any psychological experiments as to peoples natural generosity if their was no involuntary welfare?.
I can understand how some people are down on welfare beneficiaries, especially those who have worked hard and had success or those (lucky) brainy or talented ones who fly through uni etc. For me it is the bad end that exploits welfare as an ecological niche producing a lot of little criminals (perception). I have been browsing the contrarian view and the idea that the welfare state is counterproductive is thought provoking. A lot of people , however are just so damn greedy and while they think their wealth is “nothing to do with you” they affect other people by limitting their oppurtunity.
Henry
September 12th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
“stealing is wrong and that redistribution is therefore wrong”
So why advocate that the government should be allowed to ’steal’ to pay for roads and police? Why should I pay for police to protect Progressive’s business activities or to defend conferences of weapons manufacturers?
It could be argued that there is a social contract formed when a government is elected, and that those who advocate a minimal state don’t attract many votes. Personally, I think that’s a weak argument, given the degree to which corporates are allowed to influence public opinion.
However, I think a case can be made for redistribution by noting that all states are to some extent rentier states, managing natural resources on behalf of the population. If you want a society in which corporates are able to control large chunks of natural wealth, they should at least be required to compensate those who have been denied ownership of these resources.
Again, I don’t think this is a great argument - I’d rather redistribute the natural resources, make it unacceptable to alienate resources outside of one’s own community and leave people to it. Or in simpler terms “Here’s your land back, no more welfare.”
September 12th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Here’s an editorial from the Dom Post
Escaping the poverty trap
12 September 2006
The welfare state needs fixing, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial.
By world standards, New Zealand does not have a poverty problem.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/0,2106,3793942a6483,00.html
September 12th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Mouldy: “Redistribution… is a mechanism of corrupt political patronage pure and simple.”
The DPB may have been brought in as an act of political patronage, but the Unemployment Benefit began as a response to the threat of rebellion. It was simply a bribe to disuade poverty-stricken workers from formenting political unrest. There isn’t much point advocating ending welfare unless you have some way of preventing poor people overthrowing the government.
Henry:”I wonder if there are any psychological experiments as to peoples natural generosity if their was no involuntary welfare?”
The policy of releasing psychiatric patients into “the care of the community” a while back was a similar sort of experiment. I recall the then government statistician (might have been Len Cook, but I may have that wrong) noting that in this case “the community” could be best defined as “closest female relative”.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
mouldwarp
I see you are on your same old stand, trying to make sure that New Zealanders are impoverished in order to give money to people further away because they are in more dire need, or at least to tar NZ Greens with their failure to commit political suicide by trying to do so. You fail utterly to understand that this is the NEW ZEALAND Green party. “We aren’t falling for your urn of that which makes things grow”…. and being the NZ Green party there appears to be no shortage of ways in which we will commit political suicide without any prompting from you whatsoever
Since it is an article of faith for you that great concentrations of wealth are always earned in the first place, and with us that it is stolen in the first place, there can be no agreement in principle about the role of government in making the field more level. I would point out however, that the disparities of wealth that you encourage ultimately result in oligarchies and then revolutions. I prefer the social democratic equilibrium thanks, and that is one reason I am here.
All that said, there is no doubt that setting up a society in which welfare is a perfectly acceptable and accepted “way of life”, is counterproductive in the extreme. The problems however STILL require money being transferred, if not directly to individual recipients then to service providers who manage the education of the children and ensure their health and well-being. All in all this country IS the lottery-winner of the planet, but it is still a painful reality that the inequities in wealth accumulation here are not entirely a matter of talent, effort or “earning”.
You may disagree with that last, but that is fundamental for me. Accept it. You may argue other points about technique… this one is not open to argument.
respectfully
BJ
September 12th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Henry,
>> “A lot of people , however are just so damn greedy and while they think their wealth is “nothing to do with youâ€? they affect other people by limitting their oppurtunity.”
If you lived alone on an island you would have 100% of the opportunities, so why wouldn’t you be as rich as Bill Gates?
“Opportunity” is not something waiting around to be picked up by the first person that sees it. Wealth and opportunity are *created* by people.
Sam Buchanan,
> “It could be argued that there is a social contract formed when a government is elected, and that those who advocate a minimal state don’t attract many votes. Personally, I think that’s a weak argument, given the degree to which corporates are allowed to influence public opinion.”
This “social contract” is of course just a nice way of saying that the mob is voting itself a share of other people’s money.
If we are going to allow mob-rule to override basic human rights in this manner, then we should perhaps point out that slavery is entirely in keeping with such a “social contract.” Indeed, taking the fruits of other people’s labour by force is to impose a form of partial slavery upon them. Stealing is not okay just because ambitious politicians organise a show of hands amongst potential beneficiaries.
How would it be if a group of New Zealanders got together and funded an election for an alternative parliament? Everyone would be eligible to vote. No matter how many or how few votes it received, why would that parliament be any less legitimate than the current one, seeing as it followed the same democratic process?
And suppose this new assembly enacted just those laws sufficient to ensure basic human rights - the right to life, to free assembly, to your own property etc. By what right - other than the fact they they have control of an army and police force - would the Wellington parliament be able to compel me to continue to support to their corrupt, oppressive kleptocracy? Why should the Wellington mafia have any greater say over my life than this other, equally legitimate parliament which upholds my rights rather than trampling on them?
As for the corporate influence you worry about, the point is that such lobbying from special interest groups - corporates, unions, whatever - is the *predictable* and *inevitable* result of the state having too much power over our lives.
If the state restricted itself to its basic purpose of upholding the rights of the individuals there would be no lobby groups, because there could be no pork to fight over. So the real question is, just what on earth did you think was going to happen when you voted for these politicians to deprive us of our rights? Did you imagine that all these special-interest groups - businesses, unions, teachers, doctors, whatever - wouldn’t follow the money and organise themselves to try and manipulate the system to their advantage? That’s how the whole damn system works! - it’s a conspiracy between the special-interest groups and the low-life politicians in Wellington who pander to them in return for money and votes.
> “However, I think a case can be made for redistribution by noting that all states are to some extent rentier states, managing natural resources on behalf of the population. If you want a society in which corporates are able to control large chunks of natural wealth, they should at least be required to compensate those who have been denied ownership of these resources.”
There are no “natural resources” and there is no “natural wealth.” Do you think petrol is just lying around ready- refined in big drums just waiting for you to pour it into your car? Do you think steel is found in big heaps of plate in popular gauges just waiting to be banged into shape?
Certain businesses create wealth by taking the risk of investing their shareholders’ money to extract and refine these so-called “natural resources.” If you want to benefit directly from all their efforts then risk some of your own money by buying a few shares; don’t simply organise a mafia gang to demand protection money from them.
bjchip,
>> “I see you are on your same old stand, trying to make sure that New Zealanders are impoverished in order to give money to people further away because they are in more dire need, or at least to tar NZ Greens with their failure to commit political suicide by trying to do so. You fail utterly to understand that this is the NEW ZEALAND Green party…and being the NZ Green party there appears to be no shortage of ways in which we will commit political suicide without any prompting from you whatsoever”
A surprisingly frank admission that Green policy has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with ugly realpolitiks. If you’d just said this earlier I could have saved my breath. However, I suppose some good has been done in that at least the charade and pretense of morality has been torn away: You advocate letting millions of people die and live in total squalor so that money taken by force from relatively rich people in NZ can be given (for political reasons) to those who, in the scheme of things, are themselves only slightly less rich.
Nandor was spot-on when he called the Beehive a toxic hell-hole.
> “Since it is an article of faith for you that great concentrations of wealth are always earned in the first place, and with us that it is stolen in the first place”
You are twisting the argument by pretending it’s about “great concentrations” of wealth. This isn’t about the super-rich, it’s about the ordinary worker being forced to surrender their earnings to unscrupulous politicians who use it to bribe their supporters. Green, National, Labour. They are all the same. They are all only too eager to steal other peoples money to get themselves on the gravy-train.
> ‘All in all this country IS the lottery-winner of the planet, but it is still a painful reality that the inequities in wealth accumulation here are not entirely a matter of talent, effort or “earningâ€?.’
Inequality is not a “painful reality,” but poverty is. Which brings me back to my original point…
September 12th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Mouldy: “There are no “natural resourcesâ€? and there is no “natural wealth.â€? Certain businesses create wealth by taking the risk of investing their shareholders’ money to extract and refine these so-called “natural resources.â€?”
If that were true, landowners, including those who own oil fields etc., wouldn’t be able to sell or rent the land as it wouldn’t be worth anything.
Your whole argument rests on first defining unfettered property ownership as a basic human right. It isn’t.
“This “social contractâ€? is of course just a nice way of saying that the mob is voting itself a share of other people’s money…
“it’s about the ordinary worker being forced to surrender their earnings to unscrupulous politicians who use it to bribe their supporters.”
So actually, you’re saying its about the mob voting other people a share of its own money?
And your little rant about the equality of legitmacy of an alternative government ignores the fact that the current government’s legitimacy rests on it being regarded as legitimate by the overwhelming majority of it’s citizens (not including me). The processes aren’t the issue.
September 12th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Mouldwarp Says:
September 12th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Henry,
>> “A lot of people , however are just so damn greedy and while they think their wealth is “nothing to do with you� they affect other people by limitting their oppurtunity.�
If you lived alone on an island you would have 100% of the opportunities, so why wouldn’t you be as rich as Bill Gates?
“Opportunity� is not something waiting around to be picked up by the first person that sees it. Wealth and opportunity are *created* by people.
Property investment gurus talk about “wealth creation”. To me it seems like “wealth aquisition”. Their wealth comes from the poor suckers who pay the rent.
Henry
September 12th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
Mouldwarp;
I have read your reply to my last, and, I think the appropriate observation would be: “You and I are so far on opposite sides of the fence that we couldn’t throw rocks at each other, even if we wanted to.”
I don’t see any advantage in rock throwing … and thus I prefer to look for common ground, and then move on, one step at a time.
From what I have read, in your interchanges with others, I’m sure we are here on this blog for different reasons.
eredwen
September 13th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Mole Dwarp:
How would it be if a group of New Zealanders got together and funded an election for an alternative parliament? Everyone would be eligible to vote. No matter how many or how few votes it received, why would that parliament be any less legitimate than the current one, seeing as it followed the same democratic process?
I think your little thought experiment illustrates the nature of the social contract pretty well. Personally, I think that such an alternative parliament would have exactly as much legitimacy as people were prepared to accord it. And would, at some stage, (to simplify, we’ll skip the messy questions of law’norder) become recognised as the legitimate government, insofar as people’s choice would have de-legitimized the old one.
But guess what : it hasn’t happened. What does that tell us?
* That there is fierce repression going on, to prevent people from doing this? Don’t think so. I remember the notions of maori sovereignty, of a lesbian nation, being bandied about. They never amounted to anything concrete, because they never gained sufficient legitimacy in people’s eyes.
But there’s nothing to stop you proclaiming your Republic of Proprietors. Or whatever you want to call it. Run it up the flagpole, and see who salutes.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:49 am
> Mouldwarp…. You mistake my position. I don’t speak for the rest of the Green party. Can’t.
Societies have the morality they can afford. That’s always true. You can call it ugly, you can call it greedy, you can call it realpolitik… it remains true. Unlike some here, I am an engineer and I don’t usually argue emotions. Ugly realities are my bread and butter.
Can New Zealand can save the rest of the world…. well actually no… we can’t. We could save a small piece of it for a while, but only someplace as isolated as we are… and we cannot justify doing so at the cost of our own survival as a nation and as a society. THAT is what you position continue to demand.
If everyone everywhere got together and did everything possible as perfectly as possible a LOT of people might be saved, but I reckon that humanity is just a bunch of semi-civilized anthropoid apes with far more talent with clubs than compromise.
Simply put, no nation can afford the to allow inequality to rise to levels that engender civil strife. While we have a moral obligation to help, we also have a social and moral obligation to survive as a nation. Taking money from OUR poor and giving it to some poor people elsewhere in the universe makes OUR society more unequal and much more fragile. Siphoning money from our infrastructure development puts our physical survival at greater risk.
You’ve been bluntly belligerent about trying to make us “admit” things that ain’t so, continuously pressing some claim of our moral bankruptcy. But as soon as the insistence that we give money away to people we don’t know in places we’ve never been is out of your mouth you insist that we mustn’t collect money to assist anyone in New Zealand.
Which leads us to this question…. what is it you reckon is the right thing for us, as a society, to do?
We know you’re making self-contradictory arguments against just about every government any nation has ever successfully used, but what is it YOU advocate?
We are dealing with a government and a nation made up of PEOPLE… and worse, it is a self-governing mob of us. There are a lot of theories, and a lot of different ways of managing people have been tried. We’ve got pretty close to the best system ever devised going now, and it is a toxic hellhole… but it works afer a fashion, and it is OUR toxic hellhole.
No taxes are not equitably distributed, nor is welfare perfecly well organized or controlled, but it is better here than in the USA and not as good here as in Sweden. Our job as a party is to make it all work better… and our concern as a party is the survival of the species and of the planet. You want another answer, find another organization.
You may not understand this, but it isn’t any more wrong to pay taxes to have government than it is for us to help each other by organizing to collect money and distribute aid.
.. and you call us hypocritical..
BJ
September 14th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Sam Buchanan,
>> “Your whole argument rests on first defining unfettered property ownership as a basic human right. It isn’t.”
By the way, I’m coming round to take your car later in the week. Or should I call it “our” car? No objections I trust? And that touchingly bad picture of the cat your child painted at school yesterday? Mine.
>> “So actually, you’re saying its about the mob voting other people a share of its own money?”
No, because a mob doesn’t have any money. Only individuals have money. How would it be if I told that I’d organised a show of hands and we decided that you have to give us 50% of your income? That precisely what you’re advocating. The only difference is who we choose to include in our definition of “the mob”: You choose anyone within a geographical area known as New Zealand; I choose the rest of the losers propping up the public bar of the Pig And Whistle with me any workday afternoon (oh, and you, of course. We choose to include you in our mob whether you like it or not. How else could we legitimately take your money?) The principle is the same.
A legitimate state is one which upholds the rights of the individual. When the state itself is the aggressor then it loses all legitimacy, no matter that a self-interested majority may support it. This is an argument from principle here, not “might is right.” The early slave-owning United States was legitimate by your standard, purely on the grounds that the majority supported it (and benefited by it).
You advocate that the state should steal money from your neighbour because he has a slightly higher income. Another guy thinks the state should steal from your neighbour because he’s a Jew. Where’s the difference? The victim still has his rights oppressed. Where does it end?
Henry,
> “Property investment gurus talk about “wealth creationâ€?. To me it seems like “wealth aquisitionâ€?. Their wealth comes from the poor suckers who pay the rent.”
The “poor suckers who pay the rent”? Presumably nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to sign the contract? Presumably they valued having somewhere to live in preference to the money? So why are they “poor suckers”? I’ve rented in the past. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement between me and the landlord. He didn’t exploit me and I didn’t exploit him (apart from that stain I never told him about).
And property investment is indeed not wealth creation. Building and development, on the other hand, is.
bjchip,
> “Can New Zealand can save the rest of the world…. well actually no… we can’t. We could save a small piece of it for a while, but only someplace as isolated as we are… and we cannot justify doing so at the cost of our own survival as a nation and as a society. THAT is what you position continue to demand.”
On the contrary, the truth is that the long term security of western countries is threatened by the very fact that people can vote themselves a share of other people’s money in the form of handouts and benefits-in-kind.
By some estimates the United States should already be considered bankrupt because of its liabilities in the form of medicare, medicaid, social security etc. In Britain it is reported that public sector pension liabilities “dwarf” the national debt at more that 700 billions pounds and rising by some 35 billion pounds a year. Political promises all, and the politicians that made them will either be dead or comfortably retired on a gold-plated pension before the bill for all their promises arrives.
Exactly the same will happen in New Zealand.
This has all come about because the mob is able to vote itself other people’s money. That being the case, politicians know that the only way they can attain the power they crave is to continually outbid each other in the extravagance of their promises - the cost of which won’t come home to roost for decades in some cases (one popular way, of course, is to increase the size of the public sector and buy its votes). Witness Labour’s bribefest at the last election.
So if it’s national security and survival you are interested in, you should perhaps reconsider your assumption that overriding individual rights is the way to go. I would argue that national security itself only has any merit as a means to maintain the rights of the individual and is not an end in itself.
The end-game of all these self-serving political promises will be very painful, very ugly and very probably disastrous for all except the self-serving politicals.
> “Taking money from OUR poor and giving it to some poor people elsewhere in the universe makes OUR society more unequal and much more fragile. Siphoning money from our infrastructure development puts our physical survival at greater risk.”
As I have repeatedly said, inequality is never a problem; poverty is, and there are no poor people in New Zealand.
It is said that some half the world lives on $2 a day or less, including one billon on less than $1 a day.
*That’s* poverty. *Everyone* in NZ is rich by comparison and is presented by a wealth of opportunity in a working market economy. The way you people preach about the “poor” in New Zealand makes me think that either you don’t have the faintest clue about the suffering in the real world, or you are cynically using a false argument to garner votes.
If there is to be any moral argument in favour of stealing people’s money it would be to help people in poverty. What is most definately not moral is to steal people’s money under that pretext and then, ignoring genuine, widespread and extreme poverty, to spend it instead on reducing very minor domestic inequalities in order to achieve political power. That is theft and corruption pure and simple.
> “But as soon as the insistence that we give money away to people we don’t know in places we’ve never been is out of your mouth you insist that we mustn’t collect money to assist anyone in New Zealand.”
I thought I was perfectly clear. If you *are* going to steal money from people for redistribution then at least spend it according to need rather than simply using it as a huge slush-fund for buying votes domestically.
You yourself admitted that you can’t do this because it would be political suicide. Well, maybe it would. But the answer is to fix the system, not simply shrug your shoulders and join everyone else at the trough.
And your objection to sending money to “people we don’t know in places we’ve never been” obviously precludes domestic redistribution as well, unless you know everyone and have been everywhere in NZ?
> “You may not understand this, but it isn’t any more wrong to pay taxes to have government than it is for us to help each other by organizing to collect money and distribute aid.”
Actually, it is very wrong and very different. One is state-sanctioned plunder for the benefit of special-interest groups, the other is voluntary giving of one’s own money for the benefit of the needy. And even if the state were to spend the money according to humanitarian rather than political priorities, do you really believe that some nine-to-five state bureaucrat could possibly spend your money more wisely or more efficiently than you could, or have any notion about what *you* consider to be the most pressing issues?
You seem to think that anything the government does is legitimate because, er, it’s the government. It is a naive and worrying belief.
> Which leads us to this question…. what is it you reckon is the right thing for us, as a society, to do?”
I would direct you in the first instance to Bastiat’s “The Law”…
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
September 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
One of the problems with arguing with fundamentalists is their insistence that if they’ve said something often enough, it must be true:
“As I have repeatedly said, inequality is never a problem;”
Another problem is their assumption that their opponents are all of a like mind and must believe in whatever it suits the fundamentalist to claim:
” if I told that I’d organised a show of hands and we decided that you have to give us 50% of your income? That precisely what you’re advocating.”
“You advocate that the state should steal money from your neighbour”
Have another read - I never advocated this - in fact I pointed out that I’m not one of the majority that considers the state to be legitimate.
>> “Your whole argument rests on first defining unfettered property ownership as a basic human right. It isn’t.�
“By the way, I’m coming round to take your car later in the week. Or should I call it “ourâ€? car? No objections I trust?”
None whatsoever (since I don’t have a car). Did you notice the word “unfettered” in the sentence before you got in a froth? I don’t lay any claim to your personal trinkets, or the things that make your life comfortable. What I am pointing out is that a society can set is own standards and form a collective response to uphold them. I suspect you will quake at the word “collective” and might think there is “no such thing as society”, in which case I’d invite you to examine human history and try and work something out that involves human beings, as opposed to polar bears (delightfully individualistic, at least the males, will kill their own kids to reduce competition).
September 15th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
OK Mouldwarp… I just wanted to see what kind of philosophy was driving you to expound such nonsense so insistently. Couching your argument in some specious moral attack on our support of our friends, neighbours and fellow kiwis was clever, but it cannot disguise the deep rift between your philosophy and reality.
Since you couch this in economic terms and compare it to the situation in the USA, you could pay closer attention to what is ACTUALLY happening in the USA… but in the end it is irrelevant. The two economies are so completely different that comparisons will only serve to lead you (or me) astray. Consider the kiwi a world “reserve” currency? The concept probably has the entire forum ROTFL.. Did NZ drop interest rates and blow bubbles in every part of itsmarket. Does NZ use “hedonics” to lie about inflation and GDP? I could go on for a long time, but basically the two situations aren’t the same.
On the contrary, the truth is that the long term security of western countries is threatened by the very fact that people can vote themselves a share of other people’s money
That’s a problem… because it’s NOT the truth. It is your opinion, and it is completely at odds with the historical record. Completely at odds with the real world… and in a cursory glance at Bastiat, I can see that you have only considered one side of what he proposed as a dual argument… I will have to read more to see it HE manages to understand that wealth does not reduce the desire of people to gain more wealth nor does it reduce their tendency to engage in plunder. You have clearly missed that particular message.
If you *are* going to steal money from people for redistribution then at least spend it according to need
We do so within New Zealand. That is proper usage for a nation. Your proposition is valid only for a global government, not a national government. We tax ourselves and we pay the proceeds out to benefit our society… and the idea that it is a massive “vote buying” scheme misses and distorts that moral point. To the extent that politicians DO manage to do that with the money, they are clearly at fault. That doesn’t change the principle, and since it is visible to all of us it is an issue which, among others, governs our individual exercise of the franchise. I don’t have a bone to pick about the problems that the current welfare system has, as it has plenty. The idea however, that it is wrong to try to make it right, and rather more useful to simply rely on voluntary charity, fails as soon as the equal education of poorer communities in remote parts of the country is considered important… and it IS considered important by most of the country.
As I have repeatedly said, inequality is never a problem; poverty is, and there are no poor people in New Zealand.
Wrong. Poor is a relative, not an absolute measure in the societal context, for a New Zealander it is relative to other New Zealanders not relative to the poorest people on the planet. What you may be examining is whether “poor” in New Zealand means dying of poverty, and that it seldom does. This does not govern the proper concerns of a nation. On an individual basis, if I choose to give money to charity, I do well to arrange it to go to the poorest as you indicate, as it will in that way do the most good, but for a nation, the goals are quite different. Charity/welfare is not for a nation, a matter of feeling bad or not, it is a matter of social stability and perceived inequity.
Anything that the people, in their wisdom, decide to do AS a government has to be alright unless it violates the terms of the constitution/social contract under which the government is formed and legitimized. So we tax ourselve, organize spending on ourselves and go to court when someone rorts the system.
The problem you face is that the system (or more properly lack of system) that you advocate, DOES NOT work, has never worked and cannot work in a society made of human beings, any more than a pure marxist communism can work.
respectfully
BJ
September 15th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Hi Sam and BJ,
For your reference, I would suggest you take another look at the latter part of this thread:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2006/08/14/kiwi-made-kafuffle/#com ments
Our friend seems only capable of baiting, straw-man arguments and ad hom attacks based on intentional misrepresntation of other people’s comments. IMHO, attempting a dialogue is pointless, but of course it’s up to you to decide for yourselves…
cheers,
tochigi
September 15th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Sam Buchanan,
>> ‘One of the problems with arguing with fundamentalists is their insistence that if they’ve said something often enough, it must be true: “As I have repeatedly said, inequality is never a problemâ€?’
(I think you’re meant to attempt a refution at this point, not just prissily quote what I said.)
For those who still insist that inequality is a problem, imagine that everyone’s income and wealth doubled overnight. Whilst I would view such a miracle as an unalloyed good, it seems there are some who would regard it with dismay because of the inevitable doubling of inequality.
Likewise, if inequality is really a problem we could alleviate it by getting the top 5% high-flyers to leave the country, thus flattening earnings distribution. The sad thing is, I think this really would make sense to some people here.
So it is very easy to see that inequality is not the problem, although I can see how it can make for powerful rhetoric from those ambitious enough and unscrupulous enough to exploit the politics of envy (*cough* Green Party *cough*)
> “Have another read - I never advocated this - in fact I pointed out that I’m not one of the majority that considers the state to be legitimate.”
I apologise if I inadvertently misrepresented you.
>> “What I am pointing out is that a society can set is own standards and form a collective response to uphold them.”
Well here’s where you are fundamentally and absolutely misguided, simply because the consensus-driven type of society you advocate inevitably includes the slave-owning United States and Muslim countries which oppress women, gays, infidels and who knows what else. To name just two from a list as long as your arm.
What is missing from your sentimental view of societies is any notion of individual rights. Just because “society” decrees that women should wear the burkha doesn’t make it right. Just because the wider “society” deems gays to be criminals doesn’t make it right. And these societies are of course only too eager to “form a collective response to uphold” their “standards.”
The key point is that you can’t pick and choose which human rights you will uphold; if it’s okay to trample property rights in the name of the good society then it makes equal sense to oppress non-believers and designated deviants for precisely the same reason.
If you are okay with state-sanctioned stealing then you can have no *principled* objection to the legalised oppression of any minority for any reason, because you have reduced everything to a simple show of hands.
September 15th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
tochigi
His reeducation is a sisyphean enterprise. He thinks in some way, to educate us…. but for that he would have to be both smarter and wiser, and while he has some native cleverness it looks like it will be at least a decade before he can begin to accumulate wisdom.
I take your meaning though, I have no time to waste… and he is good at wasting time.
respectfully
BJ
September 18th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
“The key point is that you can’t pick and choose which human rights you will uphold; if it’s okay to trample property rights in the name of the good society then it makes equal sense to oppress non-believers and designated deviants for precisely the same reason”
Once again, the argument is reduced to a claim that unfettered property ownership is a human right, as if the oppressing people for their sex, race, religion or whatever were the same as preventing people laying claim to ownership of the resources the whole population needs to access.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
I haven’t read much of the above. Enough I suppose.
I went to the website to read the thing about poverty and saw it was a video.
Does anyone above even see the relevance of that?
I could see the video if I downloaded it for ages on my dialup connection but it’s kinda obvious to me that it’s really only for those who have broadband.
I was brought up in Mangere and live in Otara. I’ve never seen poverty. I’ve seen people without enough money and only enough to buy food from the local dairy because a taxi to the foodmarket is too expensive but that’s not poverty to me. Poverty is Africa and India. Because I don’t have much then I see poverty as having nothing at all, and more importantly, not having the chance to ever have much.
So a video on christian website may be about poverty to you. To me it’s about Sue Bradford making a living. She’s doing her job and I don’t have access to it unless I give up something else…maybe that’s poverty.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Artyone… in New Zealand it can be necessary to choose between eating and broadband…
On the other hand, a discussion of whether poverty in New Zealand exists and should be dealt with somehow, is probably best aimed at the folks as have more and will have to give some than the folks who need more and will wind up receiving… if anything effective is done at all… no?
Still, it’d be nice if the upmarket folks paid attention to the cost of bandwidth around here as I am nearing my cap and it’s only half the month gone
respectfully
BJ
September 20th, 2006 at 6:16 am
This is a long one. Please feel free to cut me to shreds… or give constructive critisism. It’s how I learn.
The fact that people are rich usually excludes them from the act of giving. The reality is they have become rich because they don’t give. Any work done to relieve poverty should be done with the people who are said to be in poverty. This work, to my mind, would be a reasonably simple matter of people being given perspective on their situation and realising the possibilities available to them. In that respect teaching people to grow there own food is an important one… but only in the sense that it is about realising, being aware of, the real resources we all have as individuals. Poverty is a state of mind.
But then we encounter difficulties because educating people as to an awareness of their possibilities also raises awareness of the inadequacy of a consumer driven market and any battle to address poverty must also undermine the tenets of consumerism. Therefore, because the survival of consumerism is paramount, poverty will only become another motivating factor within consumerism to create employment for the educated.
I mean lets get real. Poverty is neccesary in consumerism. I’m not saying that people should starve but the basic ideology of consumerism, laise faire or some such, requires that there be a minority of people in need to keep employment buoyant. Maybe I’m blaming comsumerism unfairly when it’s possibly the “full employment” part of the economic question that is at fault.
But I personally think that poverty as regards materialism isn’t the big problem at all. The poverty of the spirit is the greatest poverty in modern society. We have set ourselves up in this mad cycle of material progress where there is little time left to care. It is so easy to forget, as we all rush to keep ourselves provisioned with all the new toys of material enlightenment, what really matters. And what does matter?
Belonging. Feeling that the society we are a part of is a part of us. I say a part of us because we must be willing to give to society as much, if not more, than we are willing to recieve. If we don’t feel that society is something that will ever allow us to give as we are best able to then we will not feel that we belong. So if that belonging isn’t there then there is alienation. Poverty is a simple matter of alienation.
Therefore poverty, be it spiritual, intellectual and/or material, is a state of mind, a matter of perception and perspective, that is based in and around a feeling of alienation.
The answer, as I see it, is for those in poverty is to be aware of their alienation and lift it from feeling into intellectual realisation. As a feeling the only results are sub conscious reaction to the hurts but if it is raised into the intellect then it is merely a set of problems to be solved. The feelings can then be channeled into caring for others who share the same predicament.
Why else is our modern society filled with so many artists?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
artyone says:
“Belonging. Feeling that the society we are a part of is a part of us. I say a part of us because we must be willing to give to society as much, if not