- #1701832jens November 9, 2018 at 10:03 pm
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.
#1701834critic November 9, 2018 at 11:12 pm
- This reply was modified 9 months, 2 weeks ago by jens.
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…#1701841paulinem November 10, 2018 at 7:57 am
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#1701851jens November 10, 2018 at 11:26 am
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 ?#1701868critic November 10, 2018 at 3:00 pm
Jens… multiple choice questions (which should meet your definition of democracy).. 🙂
1- Are you trying to change the subject?
b- of course
2- Losing the plot?
b- of course
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…#1701869paulinem November 10, 2018 at 3:19 pm
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.#1701876critic November 10, 2018 at 4:37 pm
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…#1701891paulinem November 10, 2018 at 5:27 pm
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.#1701902critic November 10, 2018 at 8:49 pm
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.
🙂#1701914jens November 11, 2018 at 9:12 am
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?
The topic ‘Failure of private property based capitalism ?’ is closed to new replies.