- #1742778jens February 15, 2020 at 9:39 am
halcyon – since you did not even comment on the only way of wealth creation beyond hand-to-mouth consumption, you have to acknowledge it as truth, that no wealth can be created without saving sacrifices or surpluses at the expense of hand-to-mouth consumption potential.
Yes, and millions of poor can be helped if people have saved surpluses, as I received help from the American Red cross when a Displaced Person for nearly 4 years after WW2 in Germany.
How do you expect charity and welfare be financed without savings, surpluses or profits from those that produce them ?
And a $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start to all the more needy than those who have received it already, will not be eroded in inflation when invested in material assets which help to generate wealth – and the values of which keep up while the value of money is reduced through inflation and especially “debt free” money printing.
And if a $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start owner dies before 65 or say, a few months after birth, it will belong to his/her estate and at least contribute to his/her funeral costs, if necessary.
And halcyon – is not economic power through some meaningful level of individual capital ownership more democratic than a govt. Monpoly Capitalist “dictatorship of the proletariat” ?#1742779halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 5025halcyon February 15, 2020 at 11:10 am
Again jens, your are living in the past. Yes, I know that many received help from the Red Cross in the aftermath of WWII. However, the needs are greater now. Far more people need help.
And given the current world economic situation, money invested will not give an adequate return to fund the relief needed by so many. Why, there is even talk of our Reserve Bank setting interest rates to under 1%.
There is no reason why returns from production could not be directly channeled into world poverty relief. Those returns could be paid out equally and globally rather than a few being able to live in luxury while the majority suffer.
Our current economic models are failing to meet the needs of all people. It is time we explored new was of doing economics.
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)
#1742818jens February 15, 2020 at 5:04 pm
- This reply was modified 6 days, 8 hours ago by halcyon.
I thought that the new – never having existed before(?) – 100% property owning democracy concept would be the most effective and modern answer to eliminate partial poverty under traditional plutocratic capitalism and total poverty under recently collapsed or still struggling State Monopoly capitalism –
but I would be still extremely interested to examine all the other “new ways of doing economics” of which we have not heard before.
Which new way of doing economics would you propose for examination and application – halcyon – and all those knowing of – or hoping for – new ways of doing economics ”
I think then the discussion of this subject matter – with far longer term consequences and “cleaner” than heavily on personalities and some “trickery” based politics – will result in this thread becoming one of the most lively ones among among all the others threads.
#1742822jens February 15, 2020 at 5:20 pm
- This reply was modified 6 days, 2 hours ago by jens.
And P.S. halcyon –
Is there not some peculiarity in the attitude of proposing massive donations to eliminate poverty in the world – when at the same time opposing a $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start wealth ownership creative “seed grain” to our own have-nots and those poor or even prosperous who have not received it because they thought they could not afford a savings commitment, or thought they did not need it ?#1742824halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 5025halcyon February 15, 2020 at 5:35 pm
Jens, proposing massive donations to eliminate poverty in the world is a totally different beast to the $1,000 kickstart wealth ownership plan for NZ. For one thing the later, if implemented, only allows those in NZ to sit back smugly and say we are stamping out poverty. It totally ignores the million starving in overseas countries.
Secondly, if you compare our level of poverty with that in some countries, well we all seem well off. So lets focus on the International scene. How would you fund a similar $1,000 kickstart for all those in third world countries. People who are surviving on only a few dollars a week?
Do you not think that all people in the world should have a fair share of the rewards of the raw materials our industries use to manufacture goods for sale?
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (George Orwell, The Animal Farm)#1742844jens February 15, 2020 at 9:19 pm
But halcyon –
the $1000.- wealth ownership creative kick-start for all our citizens from cradle to grave will increase our national wealth ownership and raise our donations and welfare financing capacity in a sustainable way, whereas just raising our donations etc. without raising our productivity through more profitable investment will not raise our capacity of financing welfare, unless we are prepared to reduce our own welfare for the benefit of poor foreigners.
Small New Zealand cannot make much difference to the poverty e.g. in India – but if we set our own house in order by achieving total poverty elimination through an effort with participation by all, we would certainly give the world a clue about how they can do it in their own countries.
A few years ago there were news how poor women in India were helped to raise their profitable productivity and savings capacity by supplying them with sewing machines not debt free.
That means – much smaller amounts than the symbolic $1000.- in NZ can give a bigger kick-start in India than the $1000.- in NZ.
In principle, would not a fair share to all in a fair and sustainable way become achievable only by assisting all those in need –
to participate in the efforts and responsibilities to raise their own productivity ?
If that is not done, then would we not be faced by endlessly increasing demands for more welfare relief ?#1743194jens February 19, 2020 at 11:23 pm
Well yes halcyon – I agree that I have gained my experience about wealth creation from economic history, peoples’ behavior and my own life in the past – and not from dreams about the future.
I believe we have agreed that “neo-liberalism” intensifies socio-economic polarization into haves and have-nots – which was my reason for giving up on ACT.
In a recent article commenting about the seemingly still surviving popularity and power of neo-liberalism the author suggested –
that perhaps it is so because the political Right’s messages reflect views and feelings as if we were all home owners, which was the “proper” way to be, socio-economically ?
But we know, that the liberal political Right has not made a systematic economic effort towards achieving home ownership potential by all, and the free market has also failed to achieve it.
So halcyon – don’t you think that such an effort would be economically more wealth ownership creative than just massive redistribution of wealth to the poor for consumption ?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.