- September 21, 2017 at 5:36 pm #1643062
TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Thank you SirNigek” …, reporting in the paper/news there are homeless solo mums with 6-9 kids? Or were they just some used as an example for publicity?
That’s so true, thank you for pointing it out.
The problems started with Sir Roger and his “there is no alternative!” as learned from the Chicago School and adopted so heartily by his |Government under the banner of don’t give time for reactyion, don’t blink go for it in the same manner as the Chicago boys did in the south American countries starting with the ousting of the Allende Govt. The history is there to read. The latest events of the shock doctrine are are shown in the aftermath of Katrina and the GFC.
NZ does not need to be this way and it is the direct result of “greed is good” we adopted with Rogernomics and the Rogergnomes.
I like this thought about continuing with the current policies:
Fairfax’s Andrew Gunn gave a biting satirical summary of National’s election pitch: “A story of hospitals so successful that they have to turn away patients. A story of food-banks brimming with donations from caring New Zealanders. A story of mostly swimmable rivers, and innovative Kiwis who convert cars into bedrooms. We can’t risk all that!”
TedE - Papakura -September 22, 2017 at 12:18 am #1643114
CriticMemberMember since: June 6, 2011
Sorry Jens you obviously didn’t read the title to this thread… It states the “causes” of escalating poverty in NZ.
In discussing the “causes” we are not really targeting the discussion around potential solutions and some of us would prefer to isolate the “causes” before focusing upon the symptoms which only you seem to believe can be resolved by saving rather than spending … money.
That you can only suggest one method of coming up with funding without any clear idea of what you would do with the funding to eliminate poverty (as you profess) or how much funding would be required suggests that your chatter on the subject is more of a political fantasy of the type we become accustomed to around elections.
whatever the inevitable causes of poverty – war, corruption, natural calamities….
From this it appears to me that you have few ideas about the actual causes but we know you believe that saving money will resolve all problems…. (how the money saved is spent to achieve the desired results seems to be irrelevant)
This is one of the reasons I started this new thread targeting the conversation upon the “causes” of escalating poverty ….
It was suggested that some parents were not prepared for parenthood or hadn’t saved up but if you recall I posted the numbers of registered births at 60,000 odd So we are only discussing a potential percentage of the 120,000 individuals responsible out of the 6,000,000 or so People that use the resources and infrastructure each year- which we fund.
I find it difficult to believe that a large percentage of parents are incompetent and suggest that the lack of accountability and incompetence of about 120 people in wellington per year has a greater influence upon the escalation of poverty than the 120,000 People that contributed to the production of the registered births for 2016 (or any other year)…. Fortunately the rest of us have about 20 odd years to ensure the infrastructure is in place for them unlike the instant requirement for infrastructure which the large number of immigrants (1000 to 1500) PER WEEK.. burden us with.
The thing is …. if it becomes obvious that the causes of escalating poverty are a direct result of (for example) the criminal activities or incompetence of those serving in positions of trust …. then it is the criminal activities or incompetence that needs to be addressed not having everyone save money up to make up for criminal activities as that would be unreasonableSeptember 22, 2017 at 9:55 am #1643136
Yes critic – if we had slavery where the master has absolute power over what you have to do for what reward, and that reward is very poor so the master can live in powerful or wasteful opulence, then we can talk about the degree of poverty as a direct result of ethical criminality or incompetence by the absolute monopoly capitalist of whatever kind of tyranny – govt., corporate, tribal or individual –
and under our free democracy you are entitled to identify the culprits and their deeds, and to propose correctives.
While you have the freedom to do that, life goes on even under an incompetent or power hungry tyranny, and poverty among the people is bound to escalate the more the profits of productivity are either consumed without saving anything for investment in wealth creation and maintenance, or invested in ultimately unprofitable “white elephants”.
So, dear critic – in addition to poverty escalating disasters and identified mismanagement and criminality, the biggest and most persistent poverty escalating factor under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES (unless you come up with an example where it does not apply) – is the voluntary evasion of – or discouraged or prohibited – act of saving for wealth ownership for emergency reserves and investment in profitable productivity and trading with more opportunities and bargaining power than with just your own labouring capacity alone, like a deprived, poor slave under a monopoly capitalist.
September 22, 2017 at 11:17 am #1643156
- This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by jens.
drlivingstoneMemberMember since: October 22, 2006
Poverty is the absence of all human rights…. the frustrations,hostility and anger generated by abject poverty cannot sustain peace in any society’Mohammad Yunus Nobel Peace Prize winner 2006
Peoples Republic Of ChristchurchSeptember 22, 2017 at 2:43 pm #1643197
Yes Dr. Livingstone – poverty is the absence of especially the human right of wealth ownership creation for yourself, as it is under any sort of enforced monopoly capitalism in which you are deprived of that human right –
or in the ignorant neglect or deliberate evasion of the right of wealth ownership creation for yourself under the illusion, that the momentary pleasure of consuming all the income and wealth available is your “right for prosperity” in a sustainable way.
This “right” to prosperity amounts to nothing if there is no wealth beyond what is daily consumed “hand-to-mouth”.
Dr. Livingstone, do not those who deliberately prefer the primitive capital-less, hand-to-mouth way of life actually dissociate themselves from any right (or even desire?) to benefit from capitalism, as an imagined corruption and undesirable break(?) from exclusively direct interdependence with nature ?September 22, 2017 at 3:56 pm #1643224
arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
And another reread bites the dust, tra la,
Another thread bites the dust.
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️September 22, 2017 at 4:31 pm #1643231
drlivingstoneMemberMember since: October 22, 2006
Jens Sorry for umpteenth time in nine years you and I aren,t on the same page on poverty issues.We will have to agree to disagree once again.Playing the denigration & blame game not productive.Have a happy life. Heres hoping Jacinda and progressive parties get an opportunity to invest in all our people.Resolving issues like poverty, homelessness and affordable homes will take real leadership and a comprehensive approach to stop foreign speculators from buying existing homes,closing tax loopholes and building more houses..The government I want for to give hope to my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren is one that aspires with us for all New Zealanders to earn more than the minimum wage Have a happy life 😀
Peoples Republic Of ChristchurchSeptember 22, 2017 at 10:06 pm #1643296
CriticMemberMember since: June 6, 2011
Yes critic – if we had slavery where the master has absolute power over what you have to do for what reward, and that reward is very poor so the master can live in powerful or wasteful opulence, then we can talk about …
Hi Jens … this is not the political thread where we talk about or speculate about “ifs” or abstracts… we are talking about “causes” here…
The problems started with Sir Roger and his “there is no alternative!”
Would be very close to accurate .. although I believe sewer roger was merely a pawn and didn’t have the intelligence to mount a “coup d’etat” of the nature of the 1984 one which was consummated by shonky lawyers like graham and palmer
The thing is Ted …. prior to privatisation … The government did not own the investments it scripted from being what was once under the stewardship of Ministries and yet that is where the “THEFT” occurred.
From there… The corporations are simply laundries or instruments to conceal or transfer our interests in property as described in the Crimes Act 1961 section 243
So the Crown (corporation and/or the government) behaved as if they were above the law all with the assistance of gpalmer who is still sniffing around behind the scenes there making sure nobody has a good clue including douglas.
Act supporters or supporters of douglas (like jens) would urge folk to look in other directions with all sorts of abstract nonsense to have you focusing away from the importance of the law in any discussion about ownership ….. because Jens knows that the solution to stealing property is to take the property back (not saving up for it)… so making the Crown and the nz government look as silly as deserved or as silly as douglas (the failed pig farmer).
Of course having no interest in politics I see the ownership of generations of nz landers investments in infrastructure to be an issue of legal entitlement and section 243 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines legal interests in property reasonably well note “rights, powers and privileges” all qualify as being interests in property although they are seemingly intangible they still qualify as property and as such can be (and have been) stolen…. by asses which should now be on the line.
I hope it is clear that although I have no intentions of voting for or influencing government …. I do have an interest in the repossession of stolen property and I would no longer entrust the NZ government or the Crown as being representatives of a competent or capable Steward.September 22, 2017 at 10:12 pm #1643297
Dr. Livingstone – the political possibilities on the pros and cons of sustainable prevention of poverty escalation and its elimination altogether can freely be discussed on the “Third Way” thread.
If permanently sustainable results are to be achieved also for our descendants, we must deal with economic realities in a different way from the “laissez faire” libertarian or excessively wealth redistributing and economically stagnating ways of the past –
then I cannot agree to disagree with you as long as we have different understandings on the basic, universal economics of wealth creation and maintenance.
Because reality has to be known before a problem can be tackled with a hope of success, it is not denigrating anyone to become aware of the fact that someone is poor because of not having thought or managed to save and invest anything for whatever reason, which could be serious poverty itself.
(My apologies for the somewhat denigrating reference to deliberate “hand-to-mouth” hedonistic profligacy and evasion of prudence – or ideological opposition – by those who could have afforded to save, but did not do it.)
Yes Dr Livingstone – everything you hope from Jacinda’s govt. to be done will be economically helpful – and ultimately sustainable also by and for our grandchildren if her govt.’s consumption expenditure is kept below the taxable profits of the increasing savings and wealth creation directly initiated by her govt. through resumed NZ Super Fund contributions –
including the govt. revenue at an approved and sustainable taxation rate from all the taxable profits of all earnings from individual work and private enterprise –
for keeping up a margin for the continuation of an adequate rate of capitalism (i.e. saving and investment) to (relatively) perpetuate the sustainability of prosperity by and for all –
and for our descendants to continue with this innovation as long as poverty remains an undesirable possibility.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.