Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

Failure of private property based capitalism ?

This topic contains 268 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Critic Critic 13 seconds ago.

Discussions Politics Failure of private property based capitalism ?

Viewing 10 posts - 231 through 240 (of 269 total)
  • #1701832
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7409
    jens

    Thanks, paulinem, your last posting describes reality  very well, and is an example of economically prudent national wealth  creative  citizenship.

    However, it is  quite possible that  when you got  your  mortgage  from the SBS, they might  have had to  borrow  some of it as an overdraft from a (private)  bank having the  right to grant overdraft  credit.

    During the  Great  Depression  there  was idle  money in the  banks, and  because private enterprise  did not employ  enough enough  of it,  Keynesian  credit (which is not “debt  free”)  creation by Govt. through the  Reserve Bank to finance state housing etc.  worked  very well for a start – and for a  long time in NZ because  the Savage govt.  started at the  same  time   also the 7.5 % compulsory Universal NZ Super  Fund savings  rate out of earned  income , additionally  to income  tax.

    But despite  that, all the  welfare  became increasingly dependent on more  borrowing even from  overseas because  welfare only  increased consumption without  encouraging saving, and by Muldoon’s the  domestic  capital  ownership could not  safely  finance  more domestic credit “out of thin  air”, and  overseas borrowing  – no matter  whether  pure  gold or overdraft  bank credit – became  so much more  expensive that rogernomics  became the  best  saviour  of  our  country, better  than  banana republic  style  insolvency.

    But the  excessively liberal  way of running rogernomics   made the  mistake of  not introducing  a  universal (compulsory) national (retirement) welfare  wealth creative   savings rate, which under libertarian market economics  just intensified  national polarization into Haves and Have-Nots,  instead of  moving towards wealth  ownership  creation  by all as a better  sustainable  welfare  state  than through income redistribution alone.

    The argument in favor  of having  private  banks in addition to the Reserve  Bank  rather than  State Monopoly  banking alone is the  same  as for  the democratization  of wealth ownership based  better  sustainable  welfare  state –  spreading widening participation in the  efforts,  risks, responsibilities, economic  power and resultant prosperity to at  least “middle class”  level  to all.

     

    • This reply was modified 5 days, 21 hours ago by Profile photo of jens jens.
    #1701834
    Profile photo of CriticCritic
    Member
    Member since: June 6, 2011
    Topics: 25
    Replies: 1217
    Critic

    Sorry, critic, but to my knowledge there is no law against “corporatizing ” public assets by the strewards elected to do so

    Jens It really doesn’t matter what laws you lack an understanding of… The great thing about the culture is that it is the clear wording that matters. My guess is that there has always been folk like you that spin and spin and spin but don’t know when to stop spinning. I have indicated to you more than once that you are “bouncing off the walls” which is what happens when you can’t keep your balance.
    The thing you need to appreciate is that we probably have more laws in NZ than any other nation.
    We have laws that describe theft and money laundering which have been pointed out to you on many occasions yet it seems you are unable to digest things for long.
    If you pinch a carton of pink toilet paper you are guilty of theft even if there is not a specific law covering the theft of pink toilet paper. Its very simple to understand put like that isn’t it?

    When the People invest in infrastructure jens and a GANG or PARTIES steal that property it is theft.
    Those parties cannot be mandated through the election process to perform acts that are wrong in law or deemed by legislation to be a criminal act jens.

    There is legislation stated as being binding upon the crown which describes crimes of deceit such as money laundering (crimes act 1961 section 243) which should have sufficed especially because of the way the term “without limitations” is used
    The wording is clear …. further

    Parties are not elected-
    To be in business
    To own property held under the stewardship of ministries
    To ignore preexisting legislation defining boundaries

    We have discussed this many times but you have yet to show me proof of legislation which would empower servants to actions outside of or above the law or steal property as fiduciaries off the beneficiaries.

    In short jens you are full of wind (but we already knew that didn’t we) 🙂

    Back on track … to resolve the problems caused by the criminal actions of parties to which you gave material support for those criminal activities we need to start the LEGAL ball rolling …. because it is about the Law rather than numbers (like the elections)we can get the ball rolling with a minority rather easily because we only need to get the ball rolling eh jens 🙂

    Democracy provides for freedom of choice jens does it not?

    “Choice” Ball play… 🙂

    The repossession of stolen property (electricity)- is

    really easy under “claim of right”.
    First turn off the power at the mains switch then bridge or join the two

    heavy red wires running into the meter part…

    repo jobby 20

    #1701841
    Profile photo of paulinempaulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 14
    Replies: 629
    paulinem

    Whow Jens your reply ….Critic is right you really really SPIN the TRUTH  in wanting to promote the economic liberal economy you are obviously a fan off.

    1) The SBS was known and is still know as been an attractive bank to put SAVINGs in back when we got a mortgage ….. savings was what the SBS would have borrowed from ..credit creation belonged in those days ONLY with the Peoples bank the reserve bank via the people representative the Government of the day.

    2) Yes Muldoon borrowed heavily overseas ..BUT Jens for what reason maybe think BIG projects  Marsden point Manapouri power scheme, Benmore etc etc …projects which to this day is paid for and as a country we enjoyed the benefits from in cheap power supply …But  EXCEPT  now as, when the power schemes of Manapouri came on line WE OWNED the benefit and received a power supply that we could afford. Now thanks to your friends we no longer do own these major power supplies DO WE Jens. Critic is right they were stolen from us by your friends when in power !!

    Muldoons borrowing  you are old enough to remember the BS that Bob Jones Micheal Fay etc STIRRED up  miss truths about how Muldoon ws going to bank rupt us with his overseas borrowing…then conveniently  they used the public hysteria ( they deliberately stirred up ) of the high exchange rate  would bankrupt us to then later to steal from the NZ economy millions when Roger Douglas got into power and devalued the NZ exchange rate ..ie remember this Jens the  1984. exchange rate crisis !!

    In truth be honest Jens the amount Muldoon borrowed was PEANUTS in comparison to what has been borrowed overseas since we changed to a liberal economy to suit selfish greedy individuals and NOT  for the benefit of the majority of  average NZers

    #1701851
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7409
    jens

    O.K, O.K.  critic,  paulinem –

    Whatever  wrong is  or has been  done, you  deliberately or ignorantly ignore  the  reality, that a universal compulsory  savings  commitment without the  liberty  to opt  out of it  –  is not a liberal  economy  you misleadingly  insist I am trying to promote.

    Even though  you 2  are a  majority on this thread here, I am  not worried,  because  the democratic  national majority as represented  by our  elected  stewards still runs the  country according to the  physical profitability priority needs  for  survival so far  –  and regardless of  what  you say  or  believe and  what  future  stewards might  do  –  ultimately they will be still  forced  by nature to carry on with –  or re-invigorate  – saving and profitable  investment –  profitable  capitalism  – to get  done  anything that  needs or is  desired  to  be done in –  a constructively sustainable way.

    If you, critic and  paulinem  –  rather  prefer  the  liberty  not to  participate in this as a  universal effort  –  then  are  you not in agreement  with the  ACT  Party libertarians on that,  and in disagreement of the efforts which  have been initiated  by  our currently popular  government ?

    #1701868
    Profile photo of CriticCritic
    Member
    Member since: June 6, 2011
    Topics: 25
    Replies: 1217
    Critic

    Jens… multiple choice questions (which should meet your definition of democracy).. 🙂

    1- Are you trying to change the subject?
    a- Yes
    b- of course
    c- absofknlootly

    2- Losing the plot?
    a- Yes
    b- of course
    c- absofknlootly

    The “Failure of private property based capitalism” suggests there is only one failure and we know there are many don’t we jens why would a successful culture require so much bullshit and spinning in support of or to keep it going even after it is clearly doomed?

    Shall we start a short list of the failures?

    NUMBER ONE ON MY SHORTLIST ….. “Lawlessness”
    Failure to adhere to “Rule of Law” … evidenced by the magnitude of the Numbers of Crimes of deceit and disregard for the Law- required to transfer Equity and other interests in property (including sovereignty) to minorities (without boundaries)

    I guess I could have phrased that better … but its clear enough.
    Did you want to add to the list Jens? … don’t be shy now 🙂

    Lawful Remedy =

    The repossession of stolen property (electricity)- is really easy under “claim of right”.
    First turn off the power at the mains switch then bridge or join the two heavy red wires running into the meter part…

    repo jobby 20

    #1701869
    Profile photo of paulinempaulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 14
    Replies: 629
    paulinem

    Jens you complain re my saying the electricity was stolen from the NZ public you say it was sold by elected politicians whom had the mandate to do so .

    Jens have you  forgotten we had a referendum on the sale of state assets, this was done under the referendum rules of a petition of ( from memory ) about 500,000 NZ  voters signatures demanding a referendum on the issue of parliament selling OUR state assets. The referendum ( from memory again)  resulted in about 70-80% of NZ voters saying NO to the sale of state assets. But PM John Key  took a very arrogant attitude to this result and said the referendum was not binding and the assets will be sold. His excuse was the voters gave them the mandate to sell the assets. …ahhh NO they didn’t people elect people parties etc for a variety of reasons and that referendum conclusively said NO to sale of our assets.

    #1701876
    Profile photo of CriticCritic
    Member
    Member since: June 6, 2011
    Topics: 25
    Replies: 1217
    Critic

    paulinem … The jonkey was right though quite simply because there was no state assets or assets in which the voting public had a legal interest in.

    To look at “Ownership” (rather than the spinning’s of political parties like “State owned”) you could start with looking at all the players in terms of “Legal Entities” and then consider.

    The People have no legal interests in the corporations unless the “Owner” of that business or corporation has floated interests on the market and individual members have purchased an interest in which case they may have purchased a voting interest- with their purchased legal interest.

    If you have not got a “proprietary or possessory right in the property” then you really cannot reasonably expect a say in whether the Property (corporation in this case) is sold or otherwise traded.

    This is why I am not concerned about the government selling as many corporations as it wants to script into being (clearly its a case of caveat emptor)…the corporations are actually no good to us at all legally

    The thing is paulinem …. We did have a multitude of interests in our investments in infrastructure which were held under the stewardship of Ministries (or regionally councils) and it is those interests in property we do have a “proprietary or possessory right in” which only needs to be reasserted.

    In the case of electricity ….

    This means we have no interest in the various management structures or corporations milking our investments regardless of whether somebody wants to call them state owned or laundries for stolen interests in property or bananarepublic corporation

    so I just focus upon what we invested in (not a business) and recommend

    The repossession of stolen property (electricity)- is really easy under “claim of right”.
    First turn off the power at the mains switch then bridge or join the two heavy red wires running into the meter part…

    repo jobby 20

    #1701891
    Profile photo of paulinempaulinem
    Member
    Member since: July 8, 2006
    Topics: 14
    Replies: 629
    paulinem

    Sorry Critic your explanation sounds as convoluting and gibberish as Jens explanation to me. In brief our power sources was paid for and set up by the public representative the STATE. They therefore belonged to the public and should have stayed in public hands and representation.

    Bit like an employee of the public no matter what position they hold is and will always be while in employment of the public  a  public servant ..ie employed by the public to be a SERVICE to the public.

    The referendum was clear and definite and should have been honored as a representative of our democracy,ie the voice of the PEOPLE… that the state assets should NOT have been sold, such as Meridian energy was sold soon after the referendum.

    #1701902
    Profile photo of CriticCritic
    Member
    Member since: June 6, 2011
    Topics: 25
    Replies: 1217
    Critic

    Sorry Critic your explanation sounds as convoluting and gibberish as Jens explanation to me.

    Nevertheless I do understand your point of view, understand and agree in part….

    However we have already been ripped off… and that is a Legal Issue

    Ownership has already been interfered with and to address that treachery the best vote that you can make is connecting those two red wires I talk about under “claim of right”.

    Its called re-asserting ownership or repossessing interests in property individually just as you were taxed individually to fund the creation of those assets and interests and just as you vote in the elections as an individual

    Because the problem is of ownership and interests in property not politics so it is about the Laws
    We have had several years of shady lawyers playing at the Helm under a political umbrella- Sewer gpalmer is probably the significant player/offender certainly one who’s education would have eliminated the possibility of mistakes so his offending was deliberate. I believe sewer rogerdouglas was more of a pawn like a car salesman.
    Other lawyers involved would include sewEr douggraham the fraud man and a few more ….have we ever had so many lawyers in parliament before 1984?
    know what a “sting” is?

    So possibly it is not as convoluted as jens spinning’s- I am simply sharing a different perspective. One that provides for a solution and empowers freedom of choice through “Law Enforcement” rather than empty political spin or wasted votes every three years as the ship sinks.
    🙂

    #1701914
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7409
    jens

    Congratulations,  critic and  paulinem,  for your  debating fervor, unfortunately on the wrong thread.

    With due respect of  the  facts and  opinions given by  you –

    even  if the sold electricity assets  are all re-nationalized as  you think they should(?) –  it makes  no difference  whatever  to the economically  “upwards  by and for all” Third Way towards  at least a minimally  meaningful  level  of personal (retirement) wealth ownership  by all – i.e. private  property based  capitalism –  advantages  in a mixed  economy Social Democratic Welfare  State.

    With due respect to  your opinions on banking and  electricity  assets  ownership  – and the unalterable and ultimately  prevailing basic economic  facts I think we all know(?) – what do you paulinem  think about  re-introducing the  $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start for the  benefit  of all those who  have not  received  it, –  unconditionally from  cradle  to  grave?

Viewing 10 posts - 231 through 240 (of 269 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close this Window
 
GrownUps

GrownUps, New Zealand’s best lifestyle website, social club & brain training hub for 50+.

Join 145,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site.  We can’t wait to meet you.

Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!