- #1663229alwaysbooksMemberMember since: May 12, 2015
Replies: 60alwaysbooks January 19, 2018 at 9:26 am
There does seem to be an increasing number of people who are maxing out their credit cards and this would have an impact on their savings, no doubt.
However, I don’t believe this is a major contributor to poverty or drops in saving.
Consider that 50 – 60 years ago an ordinary working man, and I use the word deliberately, could put in a 45 hour, 5 and a half day working week and his wages would be enough for him to cover his mortgage, keep his wife, raise his 2.5 kids have couple beers and a little flutter on the horses and put a little in the bank each week. An ordinary working man can’t do that these days, not unless his wife is also working. To get the number of hours to earn enough for the bare basics they’re probably having to work multiple jobs and even then their cchances of saving for the future is limited.
Part of the problem is that labour is undervalued and the law prevents the working person from taking any action from improving their position.
Another sign that labour is not valued can be seen in how we treat theft. If an employee steals from employer then the full force of criminal law is bought to bear against the erring worker. On the other hand, if an employer steals from an employee it is treated as a civil matter and even when discovered and remedied there is no criminal record against the employer. Justice? I don’t think so.
There are many other examples of how labour, as a commodity, is disadvantaged in our free market. Remedying these will do more to reduce poverty and improve savings than tinkering with taxation will achieve.#1663326jens January 19, 2018 at 4:19 pm
alwysbooks – can you please give at least just 1 well explained reason why you think “people’s capitalism” as defined on Jan 16th, can be described as “airy fairy” utopian idealism ?
Yes, while it might be never achieved to the “minimally meaningful level of wealth ownership” – (ca say $300 000.- by each citizen at present, even though within a few generations a huge proportion of citizens might be born with that amount of inheritable wealth ownership to their name already) –
but with even deliberate spend-thrifts, hedonists and the seriously unfortunates accumulating some retirement capital ownership –
is it not clear that the economy would be so much stronger with so much more welfare capital ownership, that much better care can be taken of the increasing proportion of our longer living descendants in relation to the working age population –
not as an increasing burden to them, but as being able to increasingly reward workers for their services delivered from the retirement capital assets accumulated by seniors, and much less needed directly for financing “hand-to-mouth” consumption by workers for superannuation and eldercare ?
This does not replace the “Hidden Hand” of Adam Smith’s free market economy, but only rectifies its excessively libertarian way of application which increasingly leads to socio-economic polarization into Haves and “Have-Nots” through effectively persuasive salesmanship of consumption even on credit.
While higher earnings might improve the country’s savings rate, this does not necessarily eliminate the proportin of habitual spend-thrifts.
Our welfare state of 60 year age did not lead to increasing prosperity by all with reduced demand for benefits, but actually encouraged poverty in order to qualify for more benefits.
The 100% Ownership Society or Peoples Capitalism first presented for discussion here by Dr. David Skilling of the NZ Institute over 15 years ago –
deserves serious discussion and consideration as the “new ” socio-economic vision needed here, which has achieved spectacular results in Singapore already.
#1663374alwaysbooksMemberMember since: May 12, 2015
- This reply was modified 7 months ago by jens.
Replies: 60alwaysbooks January 19, 2018 at 8:11 pm
No I’m not interested in playing that game. I can’t be bothered doing the study required to go into that level of detail. But I will say this. Every new political/social/economic theory that is rolled out with the promise of creating a new Utopia turns out to be nothing but airy fairy nonsense. It was true of Douglas credit, it was true of Marx’s communism, it’s true of rogernomics, it’s true of Keynesian economics, it’s true of Smith’s supply and demand invisible hand. None of them work as predicted. Why? Because people! Most people will always act in their own self interest and screw the system, take more than they contribute
It’s a mistake to put your faith in any economic theory as a solution to inequable distribution of wealth.
Economists will try to tell you they practice a science. That’s rubbish. Economics is nothing more than a modern form witchcraft.#1663437jens January 19, 2018 at 10:29 pm
alwaysbooks – if you are serious in your belief in witchcraft then you are practically in the “Flat Earther” stage of reality perception, and “not bothering to study” can only keep you there.
Economics on the tangible and measurable level is subject to the same laws of physics regardless under what kind of ideology we live or what we believe.
Everything that moves or grows consumes energy, and therefore the basic priority for survival and growth is profitability over the energy consumed for acquiring the energy for living and growing, such as can be illustrated by a bear having to store up fat for survival when hibernating in winter.
Hard work that is unprofitable – or of which nothing is saved for lean times – does not prevent starvation in lean times.
Someone had to save and invest in the house you live in, alwaysbooks – there is no witchcraft in that, is there ?
So – there should be no difficulty in understanding and trusting the effectiveness of a systematic, measurable (not imaginary) capital savings rate based “people’s capitalism” with participation by all – as more successful in poverty elimination and prevention than whatever has been tried or “theorized” in the Western World so far.
alwaysbooks – do you think the $1000.- Kiwi Saver kick-start to all who have not received it yet – “from cradle to grave” – would be a fair and egalitarian (retirement) wealth ownership creative “seed grain” of benefit to the national economy and personal retirement welfare – or just a short term “splash” similar to I believe Mr. Nordmeyer’s 100.- pounds or dollars election (Christmas) gift many years ago ?#1663443drlivingstone January 20, 2018 at 8:32 am
And who has benefitted by the sale of some of our most treasured landscapes all Half a million hectares of them? Wealthy foreigners snapping up valuable land once owned by the public in a vast wave of privatisation. Who should own our high country BILLIONAIRES looking for boltholes?
Peoples Republic Of Christchurch#1663465drlivingstone January 20, 2018 at 1:16 pm
How many of these billionaires were given “exceptional citizenship status” whilst “an obscure but vast transfer of wealth and resources took place” and why did the previous government behave so strangely?
Peoples Republic Of Christchurch#1663473mommabear70MemberMember since: February 20, 2017
Replies: 1265mommabear70 January 20, 2018 at 2:04 pm
drlivingstone, I’d say the foreign investors have done the CoL a favour.
To keep their promise to plant one billion trees (1,000 trees planted per hectare) they need to purchase one million hectares.
Land to plant the billion trees on is 6 times the size of Kaiangaroa Forest.
One million hectares if in one part = 100km long x 100km wide.
Now draw a square that size on a map of NZ and see how much land is needed for this failed promise.
So at $8000 per hectare that comes out at a mere $8000 billion(if we use the short scale) just for the land.
Or if the CoL continue down the weaseling out path and only meant for the govt to plant half a billion trees, then they still have to stump up with $4000 billion.
What would that cost to borrow?
Of course, as soon as the officials are sent out out to buy land the price won’t stay around $8,000 ph for long.
Practically all of the CoL lineup are Mathematically challenged. Do not seem to be capable of simple arithmetic. Don’t even know how many of them are in the House at voting time.
That’s why the CoL are happy for Hipkins to remove a national standard for educational achievement – that way no one will have to be held accountable as NZ produces more dopey, mathematically challenged no hopers!
Then the idiot Jones talked about incentives for the foreign owners of forestry companies to plant more trees. What’s a bit more Corporate Welfare amongst friends.
We’ve got a bunch of
halfquarterwits running this country.
And as if that isn’t bad enough, imagine the circus when Peters takes over.#1663498drlivingstone January 20, 2018 at 7:03 pm
A bitter pill for you to accept mommabear70 true but no justification for throwing your toys out of the cot?. Go Jacinda &Clarke I say and a generational change of a Prime Minister who is already multitasking with her Coalition Government. Looking forward to the challenges of 2018. 😀 😀
Peoples Republic Of Christchurch#1663528jens January 20, 2018 at 8:27 pm
Hm – Dr. Livingstone is still at his old game of diverting attention from discussing the fairness and economic wealth growth benefits or wealth wastage and loss by extending the $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start grant to all who have not received it yet, unconditionally to all, from cradle to grave.
This of course would very clearly start NZ off on the third way, upwards for all, and gradually reduce all socio-economic Right and Left wing sectional interest debates to marginal side-shows.
Since personal wealth ownership gives individuals also some real economic power, responsibilities and opportunities beside just a political vote, it is clear that the Ownership Society concept is democratically superior to our current liberal mixed economy of Haves and Have-Nots, and even more so when compared to the universal mass poverty and reduced freedoms under dictatorial state monopoly capitalism.
Also, since nothing can be done without capitalism, is it not only fair that everyone participates in owning a share of it ?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.