- #1677753TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Replies: 2198TedE April 27, 2018 at 10:41 pm
That article seemed to be what I would call the opinion of someone who is in favour of the Chicago School of Economics government model. It will not produce a NZ that I wnt our Great Grandchildren to grow up in.
Greed is Good, the philosophy of Roger Douglas.
did you by any chance read the Brian fallows opinion as well?
TedE - Papakura -#1677792jens April 28, 2018 at 2:55 pm
TedE – for rational discussion on economics, forget about the emotions stirring “greed is good” sarcasm, which can be applied to just about any ambitious effort and success.
The “neo-liberal” libertarian Chicago School of Economics believes that the free market by itself alone will be most effective in disciplining and guiding free thinking humans to achieve the results they desire, which obviously failed to prevent relative poverty amidst plenty, and even intensified socio-economic polarization into Haves and Have-Nots.
The article “New style of reform way out of growing inequality divide” (Robert MacCulloch), by hinting towards systematic participation in personal wealth ownership creation by all is a far cry from libertarian economics, and is actually “socialistic”, even though the opposite of Socialism, i.e. govt. monopoly capitalism.
And thanks for the Brian Fallow article, which clearly explains why the income for labor has not increased at the same rate as national income –
because without investing more capital per worker any increased productivity beyond a certain point is just impossible and does not happen.
So, for fairness’ sake, what better solution to the Have/Have-Not socio-economic inequality can there be, than universal participation in Third Way personal (retirement) wealth ownership creation by law, TedE ?#1679966jens May 11, 2018 at 8:00 pm
Well, TedE – are you not happy with the reality revealed by the Brian Fallow article you recommended to read ?
It reveals the truth – that beyond a certain point, productivity and resultant earnings can be increased only by more capital investment.
But if the increased productivity only keeps pace with an increasing population rate, there is no increased productivity and earning per average worker , but only for the owners of those creating and risking more capital investment.
Obviously then, is not the natural and fairest way for workers to participate in the increasing productivity and earnings through capital investment –
to participate in capital creation and ownership ?#1679976TedEMemberMember since: May 6, 2006
Replies: 2198TedE May 11, 2018 at 10:35 pm
Where does inflation fit into this picture?
TedE - Papakura -#1680007jens May 12, 2018 at 2:49 pm
The modest rate of inflation trough a modest rate of repayable bank credit creation can be seen as an economically beneficial discouragement of creating idle cash hoards “under the mattress” that could cripple an economy if on a large enough scale.
But “runaway inflation” through “debt free” credit creation – or credit creation at a scale of no hope of repayment – if not stopped by bankruptcy – destroys any possibility of wealth creation through saving money, and destroys the value of money as a means of exchange and a measure of value, and ends up in increasing black marketeering and plain barter economy principles, which is very inefficient in a large economy.
Briefly then – an inflation rate lower than what people think is a reasonable rate of interest to pay for the benefits achievable by borrowed money is –
economically sound and what all responsible governments should be urged to stand for.
The Third Way – by having all citizens (even babies with the $1000.- KiwiSaver kick-start!?) participating in the long term retirement capital ownership creation and accumulation progress –
will help to keep inflation low by the availability of more domestic capital for investment replacing (somewhat more inflationary) imported capital – and by raising the country’s credit rating,
it may even reduce the interest cost of borrowing foreign capital.#1681996jens May 28, 2018 at 10:31 am
I just looked at a newspaper cutting sellotaped to one of my old address books, unfortunately without a date nor note where it came from:
“We are a party founded on the principle of home ownership and we intend to deliver on that principle”
Which party was responsible for that statement ?
And for the sake of fairness, would that not require 100% participation in home (and retirement) capital ownership creation ?
#1688315jens July 24, 2018 at 4:31 pm
- This reply was modified 8 months, 4 weeks ago by jens.
Since there is widespread interest in the home ownership issue in New Zealand at present – and no one spoke against the fairness of working towards 100% of home ownership potential through the systematic participation in this effort by all –
it seems there is tacit approval for the “Third Way, upwards by all” visionary direction into the future.
Skeptics should take note, that if news of the Cuban Socialist government contemplating to allow personal capital ownership accumulation – and the profitable investment of it by successfully responding to unsatisfied market demands – is true –
then a step towards “Ownership Democracy” has now been initiated even by a state capitalist monopoly dictatorship !!!(?)
If our political Right chooses to ignore the “Third Way” and not compete in coming up with more fair and effective ways to move upwards in wealth ownership by all, then would that not be “practical capitulation”, and unchallenged “Centrist” Third Way leadership through the Political Left ?#1692270jens August 21, 2018 at 10:38 pm
At the Mt. Albert Labour public discussion meeting on “A sustainable economy for Aotearoa” this evening (21st of August, main speaker Economic Development Minister David Parker) –
even the speaker most critical of “global capitalism” Christine Rose had to admit, that most people are just not willing nor able to live without capitalism.
The audience supported David Parker’s vision to move (through a more even application and participation in capitalism? ) towards a more prosperous “middle class” able to take better care of those in need.
Will Labour or National become courageous enough to initiate a systematic effort towards raising at least all healthy citizens to current “middle class” levels of prosperity ?#1692292halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4823halcyon August 22, 2018 at 10:09 am
Jens, I am reminded of the saying ‘talk is cheap, it takes money to buy beer.” The current policy of depressing the pay for those at the top while also raising the income for those at the bottom will move us all towards “Middle Income”. But will we all be better off?
Already disturbed, approach with caution.#1692343Hero42MemberMember since: July 18, 2008
Replies: 11575Hero42 August 22, 2018 at 4:33 pm
On the basis that the ones at the top are no worse off unless they feel aggrieved that they didn’t get something they were counting on, and the ones at the bottom are earning more then yes we will all be better off.
Plus the ones at the bottom will have more disposable income and the ones at the top will still have all their disposable income so there will be more more in the economy which will encourage growth.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.