This topic contains 229 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by 
jens > 7 days ago.
- #1700001critic October 24, 2018 at 12:20 pm
Let us focus on the pros and cons on the most agreeable ways of achieving that – and not waste time on debatable legal obscurities and details of marginal importance and interest.
Let me see what you are saying here
Lets focus upon fair savings and investments and marginalize any form of security for those savings(being a waste of time) which the laws could provide if they were adhered to or if law enforcement was more efficient and less able to be steered by thieves serving in positions of trust.
Would that be a correct interpretation of your pist?
.
.
oh look! 🙂 🙂 🙂
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…
#1700015jens October 24, 2018 at 3:43 pmNo critic, my post does not propose “to marginalize any investment securities” which is a different subject matter with only marginally noticeable economic consequences in a socio-economic order where the danger of enforced nationalization without compensation does not exist.
The possible difference in electricity prices before and after “incorporation” and privatization can be only marginal, but with the profitability dependent variety we can be sure that it really runs profitably, whereas in a “social service” form of management it may become an unprofitable burden which has to be subsidized from profits from somewhere else.
With this clarification perhaps now you are satisfied to examine with more interest the pros and cons of better progress along the Third Way to its destination – upwards by and for all ?
#1700020critic October 24, 2018 at 4:33 pmNo critic, my post does not propose “to marginalize any investment securities” which is a different subject matter with only marginally noticeable economic consequences in a socio-economic order where the danger of enforced nationalization without compensation does not exist.
Next you will be trying to tell me the moon is blue and made of cheese jens …. with a business model the only important factor is milking the cow.
On more than one occasion now there has been evidence of poor maintenance with the criminals corporate model causing problems including a power outage a few years ago and I believe there is current evidence of poor maintenance in the Christchurch region….. the cost to put this right is going to be added to the price of electricity in that region but ….. cheer up jens the management of the criminals laundry involved- will probably still get bonuses and unreasonably high rewards for doing nothing to date.Whatever problems you believe the “Legal” Model had it certainly was not going to be resolved by criminal activities and of course no amount of your bull excrement is going to change the fact that real kiwi’s have been deprived of their interests in their investments as the result of criminal activities you actively support.
The possible difference in electricity prices before and after “incorporation” and privatization can be only marginal,
Irrelevant if the difference was only 2c a unit or less jens Because The Law is The Law and stolen property is stolen property… but we both know that not needing to pay a multitude of corporations each with executive structures, advertising budgets, bonuses etc etc plus GST is going to make a significant difference and if you are incapable of seeing that with clarity we should ignore your sales pitch for a third way entirely because it is beginning to sound more like you are trying to build up yet another healthy public fund for your rich mates to milk
thank you for your clarification of your proposed milking plant.Hey…. look at this budget legal processing … “unbridled power” made easy 🙂 🙂 🙂
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…
#1700042jens October 24, 2018 at 5:41 pmHi dono21 – what a pleasant surprise discovering the posting on your quality of life achieved through saving.
If you are prepared to examine for discussion the pros and cons of proceeding along the “third way upwards by and for all” through intensified participation in saving by all –
then any irrelevant suspicions and accusations by critic could be ignored, and a constructive discussion continue in a lively way.
So then – what would your comments be on resuming the $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-starts to all who have not received them yet, unconditionally “from cradle to grave” ?
This can be done without costing anything extra, by allocating these kick-starts as accounts within the NZ Super Fund existing there as donated and earned by us already,
No need to be shy on critical questions and suspicions on that.
#1700129jens October 25, 2018 at 3:52 pmdon021 –
you are right in that a lot of poverty is the result of seductively glamorized advertisements to consume – also on credit .
When successful – market libertarians even see it as economic “boom time”, but which actually increases the wealth of only the producers of the successfully marketed consumption expenditures –
and widens and perpetuates poverty of all those who saved nothing or even consumed their savings with paying for their increased (luxury?) consumption.
Obviously, the prohibition of persuasive advertisements is not the answer to this problem, but a systematic, permanent (retirement) wealth ownership savings rate built into our taxation system effectively prevents the consumption of all one’ income and savings.
Never again should we cease contributions into the NZ Super Fund, and the $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start for all will remain national capital wealth for up to 65 years for all new-born babies, after which it can be consumed for the benefit of all !!!
#1704499jens December 7, 2018 at 9:02 pmWell don021 – don’t you think that resumption of the $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start to all who missed out on it – unconditionally “from cradle to grave” –
would be an affordable and effective start along the Third Way, not Right nor Left, but Upwards for all ?
#1704518don021 December 8, 2018 at 11:10 amHello Jens, I have not studied Kiwi Saver as my savings days are over and I am now enjoying the benefits of earlier saving. However, if it encourages people to save I am all for it. What bothers me now is the advertising that offers products ” Buy one, get one free” Nothing is free, that just shows the awful mark-up of the product. There are many examples of this sort of advertising, ” all stock half price” A bargain? Appearances are often deceptive. There is no doubt in my mind, saving is the WAY TO GO. Time payment is NOT.
#1704586jens December 9, 2018 at 9:29 amdon021 – if there are more courageous people like you not afraid to proclaim the truth on welfare, prosperity and creative satisfaction and happiness generation, the political parties might also begin to pay more attention to this basic matter for the benefit of all – even those beyond our borders, if they have excessive emotional and material welfare problems to cope with.
While our liberal human rights would not agree with prohibiting persuasive commercial advertising to buy consumer goods on credit which may lead many to consume all their income “hand to mouth” and become and remain wealth ownership-less have-nots, this free market “neo-liberalist” defectiveness can be amended by compulsory saving as e.g. through our NZ Super Fund, for wealth creation and maintenance for consumption in retirement.
KiwiSaver has the same purpose on a more personal level, but since we have one compulsory savings scheme already, is it not more liberally fair just to grant the $1000,- kickstart to all who have not received it yet, unconditionally “from cradle to grave” ?
It can be financed by the savings we are accumulating and have accumulated for retirement welfare already in our NZ Super Fund.
#1706295jens December 31, 2018 at 7:08 pmWhile I have not read Rod Oram’s book “The Big Questions: What is NZ’s Future” yet, but encouraged by don021’s positively realistic posting, it might be helpful to have another reminder of the history and future possibilities of the Third Way, upwards by and for all:
To my knowledge, it emerged initially at an international Socialists conference in London(?) in the late 1880-s, when the Social Democratic welfare state idea (boosting living conditions upwards for the poor and unfortunate, financed by taxing average and high incomes) broke away from Socialism as the (mixed economy) Third Way between exclusive private enterprise capitalism and Socialism –
and it was successful up a point.
But it began crippling the economy from the point where the expectations and demands for welfare support began to encroach on the adequate savings, investments and debts repayments willingness and capacity of the nation, leading to the need for reforms as initiated with the change of govt. in 1984, which neglected to foresee, that free market liberalization did not result in everyone beginning to build up their own wealth to replace some of the welfare benefits –
and the vigorous salesmanship for increased consumption actually resulted only in widening poverty by non-savers, and social polarization into Haves and Have-Nots.
So, since the shortcomings (faults) of both, free market liberalism and excessive welfareism have now been revealed and experienced, and with even worse experiences and evidence under Socialism, and Social Credit still not trusted as the “funny money” theory (tested and given up in Canada) –
the Third Way – or “Ownership Society” concept – towards at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership by all citizens eventually will be a natural contender for the answer to the question: “What is NZ’s Future?”.
#1708176jens January 19, 2019 at 4:15 pmSince no explained opposition to the Third Way upwards by and for all in consumption potential, economic security and wealth ownership has emerged so far – and majority approval of non-compulsory KiwiSaving is reflected in the daily press – the time is ripe for reminding the public about how progress along the Third Way towards at least some minimally meaningful wealth ownership by all can be accelerated through our universal NZ Super Fund contributions being registered in the name of their contributors’ Personal Accounts – PAs – within the NZ Super Fund.
This does not mean the privatization of NZ Super, but only a more fair effort to keep a fair rate of universal NZ Super sustainable from age 65, with PAs financing their owners’ NZ Super until consumed at the rate of NZ Super – at which point PAYGO (Pay As You Go) automatically takes over NZ Super payments.
The increased fairness of this is that in the case of death before reaching age 65, or all of the PA has not been consumed by financing its owner’s NZ Super, it is part of its owner’s estate for the benefit of the owners’ beneficiaries.
Like with KiwiSaver, a NZ Super Fund PA would also be available for investment in first home ownership without compromising its purpose of helping to keep NZ Super sustainable by the full value of contributions (+ earnings) to a PA.
Critical questions and evidence backed counter-arguments welcome.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
