- #1709896halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4937halcyon February 2, 2019 at 4:57 pm
Actually jens, paulinem makes a good point in her last post. Yeah, I know she is repeating one she made earlier.
There would be considerable costs in privatising the National superannuating fund and paying it into individual accounts. It is more economic for that money to remain in a Government account as at present. With the current trend towards socialism I think your third way is now outdated. It may have been an option 10 years ago but not now.
It's ok if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.#1709914jens February 2, 2019 at 7:03 pm
halcyon – having KiwiSavings invested with the NZ Super Fund does not privatize our NZ Super nor alter the Fund’s function to help keeping our universal NZ Super sustainable from age 65.
Did you not take notice that 3 million $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-starts would be only $3 billion within the currently over $40 billion wealth of the NZ Super Fund – with the same benefit for all and owned equally by all of us and for exactly the same purpose as what the NZ Super Fund stands for.
Are you a Socialist, halcyon, with your opposition of some private capital sharing in the security and benefits of our collective NZ Super Fund, potentially helpful towards 1st home ownership ?
Or are you among the libertarians wanting to do away with the NZ Super Fund altogether ?
Are not all opponents of mixed economy private ownership based democracy Socialists?
If you are not a Socialist, halcyon, then tell us please why do you think the idea of a 100% property owning democracy is out-dated, and what is your idea of overcoming poverty and intensified socio-economic polarization into haves and have-nots ?#1716253TedE April 9, 2019 at 8:37 am
To return to Kate Raworth’s thesis; which I believe is what we should be aiming for; It is a matter of how to achieve her goals:
Her idea is that our present economic system is predicated on GDP and we seem to have that as a basis for our thinking and planning.
Kate is putting forward the idea that it is a misconception. In her book she (like Ha Joon Chang and Thomas Picketty) look at the historic development of economic thinking and it’s shortcomings.
Her thesis is based on the concept of the World as a biosphere (earthship) and that what we have on board is all. We can only consume so much and produce so much waste before we upset the balance of the biosphere that has been fairly stable for the past 10,000 years (the holocene period) and that once we degrade it we will then accelerate the species decline that we see around us. Since the 1800 our consumption of fossil fuels and the burgeoning of the human species has disrupted the balances that pertained for the prior 8000years.
Her illustration uses the “doughnut” analogy as an illustration of the sweet spot that we have inhabited and the ideals that we should be able to bring all humans within that sweet spot and reduce the overshoot(meaning the degradation of the biosphere) that will enable the long term survival of the mammalian species.
It seems to me that we don’t take the situation seriously enough and this has been highlighted by the Swedish girl Greta Thunberg who I believe has the right idea. We need to start acting as though this were an emergency (which i believe it is0 and try to prioritize our actions to achieve the changes needed to bring about change.
TedE - Papakura -#1716268jens April 9, 2019 at 2:04 pm
Well, Ted E – what practical policies have been proposed towards achieving the less polluting and consuming culture advocated by the Swedish girl and Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economy?
Did you manage to pick out any suggestions ?
The only policies I can imagine towards moving really effectively in those directions is in achieving negative population growth and a more prudent and austere life-style to pollute less – and accumulate the capital needed for cleaner productivity as e.g. more solar power investment ?
Or what better can you, TedE – or any grownup – suggest for examination and discussion ?#1716273TedE April 9, 2019 at 2:37 pm
I think that Great Thunberg has given us the means and example as to how to do this.
Kate Raworths ideas seem to be the ideal if we can achieve that sort of configuration and live within the planetary boundaries is possibly where we need to be.
However the problem is how to get there!
If we accepted that as the goal then we are on the way!
The Paris agreement is an international agreement of what we need to achieve tog et there!
Implementation of that agreement is needed now!
Therefore Greta Thunberg’s stance to get the politicians to implement policies to achieve those goals 9signed up to in the Paris agreement) is what we must strive for at the same time as reducing our individual footprints. Come the next election we must ensure that politicians are on the track to achieve the goals that our present Govt aims to set.
TedE - Papakura -#1716365jens April 9, 2019 at 9:12 pm
But TedE – all that still does not give us the first unmistakable step in the direction articulated by the Swedish girl. (?)
For that, perhaps we have to turn to what American politician Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has just put on the political agenda there, so even if you are too cautious to reveal and discuss your personal stand on that – there are bound to be more courageous people prepared to discuss the issue with an open mind.#1716366TedE April 9, 2019 at 9:38 pm
Jens, I”m not intelligent enough to be able to say what the first step should be.
That is over to our leaders to enact the goals and the steps to achieve the goals set by the Paris Accord and signed by most of the countries. That is what our Government has undertaken to do and what I want to hold them to.
What i do know is i must reduce my carbon footprint as an individual and strive to continue improving my own performance while encouraging others to understand that we can make the world a better place.purchase anything that is going to waste but that is going to be able to be reused in the next stage of the cycle of life.
I think that Kate Rowath’s explanation of the circular economy where we recycle and reuse and reduce our waste. These are the first steps that I need to take in that direction. I should endeavour not to preach to others but persuade them to a similar course through example, especially to our grandchildren.
In case anyone reads this doesn’t know about Kate Rowath here”s a link:
TedE - Papakura -#1716377jens April 10, 2019 at 10:46 am
Very good, TedE -I have practiced that all my life – prudently walked and bi- and re- cycled as much as possible and trying to be modest and sometimes even skimpy and always within my means – and as a result prospered enough for a relaxed retirement.
It is within my means now to contemplate solar panels and electric car ownership.
So, TedE — would that recipe not be good for all humanity, and could not a govt. help towards participation in it by all through introducing a universal personal wealth ownership creative component into the taxation system ?#1717405TedE April 23, 2019 at 3:00 pm
Yes Jen’s that is a good place to start.
Congratulations and go for it.
TedE - Papakura -#1717427jens April 23, 2019 at 7:58 pm
Thanks TedE – join me in trying to get other Grownups also positive about it.
Better even if you take the lead or find a leader for it, because I might have offended enough individuals to be more of a liability than an asset for the cause.
Cheers for all!!!
The topic ‘Doughnut Economics’ is closed to new replies.