Login/Join to access your personalised dashboard now! Returning user? Log in or Register
Log in to your GrownUps

The Third Way

This topic contains 230 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of jens jens 5 days, 2 hours ago.

Discussions Politics Today The Third Way

Viewing 10 posts - 51 through 60 (of 231 total)
  • #1677753
    Profile photo of TedETedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 6
    Replies: 2238
    TedE

    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?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12026660

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1677792
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    jens

    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 ?

    #1679966
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    jens

    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 ?

    #1679976
    Profile photo of TedETedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 6
    Replies: 2238
    TedE

    Where does inflation fit into this picture?

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1680007
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    jens

    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.

    #1681996
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    jens

    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 ?

    • This reply was modified 10 months, 3 weeks ago by Profile photo of jens jens.
    #1688315
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    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 ?

     

     

     

    #1692270
    Profile photo of jensjens
    Member
    Member since: May 3, 2006
    Topics: 22
    Replies: 7580
    jens

    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 ?

    #1692292
    Profile photo of halcyonhalcyon
    Member
    Member since: May 4, 2014
    Topics: 9
    Replies: 4855
    halcyon

    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?

    There is nothing more valuable than truth

    #1692343
    Profile photo of Hero42Hero42
    Member
    Member since: July 18, 2008
    Topics: 65
    Replies: 11674
    Hero42

    Halycon
    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.

    Cheers 🙂

Viewing 10 posts - 51 through 60 (of 231 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement
 
Join Free.  Register for newsletter updates & complete your membership for full site access.  Welcome & Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!

Close this Window
 
GrownUps

GrownUps, New Zealand’s best lifestyle website, social club & brain training hub for 50+.

Join 160,000 GrownUps for Free. Register now to receive our regular email newsletters to keep you up to date & complete your membership to access all areas of the site.  We can’t wait to meet you.

Enjoy!

Register Free today and go in the draw to win a $50 gift card!