“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom”

 

24 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  September 11, 2017

    Yes you can. Lets do this. Vote Labour.

    Of course you can’t. But tell that to starry eyed vacuous voters who believe we need a change. Well, because National is stale and has no vision. That’s 100% true. The thing is, the alternative is worse. Best the socialists you know, until something better comes along.

    That will be never. Thank God I’m not voting.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  September 11, 2017

      Not voting? Resigned to the inevitable? Too young? In prison?

      • Corky

         /  September 11, 2017

        The inevitable is already here. We have had it for the last 20 years. This election I decided not to kid myself.

        We had one chance to break free. But David Lange decided to have a cuppa. What could have been…what could have been.

  2. Blazer

     /  September 11, 2017

    you cannot generate wealth without labour content.Control labour ,control wealth.Control money creation,control subservience.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  September 11, 2017

      One of the big problems facing the world is that the “labour content” is being removed from the equation.
      Risk takers now have less and less need for labour to make their wealth.
      The unemployed masses will rejoice coming out from the yoke of oppression.
      And you’ll be pleased to know many will have a life without money as well.

      • Blazer

         /  September 11, 2017

        if you are talking robotics,its effect while significant can never replace labour in your lifetime.Depends on what you call….’money’.The pyramid always demands obedience.

      • Patzcuaro

         /  September 11, 2017

        If the destitute masses don’t have any money they won’t be able to buy the products and services that make the risk takers wealthy.

        The wealthy will soak up some of the unemployed to protect them against destitute who won’t have much to lose.

        • High Flying Duck

           /  September 11, 2017

          See – capitalism works! 🙂

          • Patzcuaro

             /  September 11, 2017

            Capitalism or feudalism, sounds like the baron in his castle with the riff raff starving outside once the troops have finished raping and pillageing.

  3. sorethumb

     /  September 11, 2017

    A conventional economic analysis of large -scale immigration impacts

    The distinctive feature of the New Zealand economy is that land is an important input into
    the productive process. This is obvious with the agricultural, fishing and forestry sectors but
    it also applies to international tourism. In a simple model of the New Zealand economy
    where the supply of land is fixed, and New Zealand’s isolation means it is not a ‘natural’
    location for the production of a broad range of internationally traded goods and services,
    then an increase in the labour supply through large scale immigration will reduce the
    marginal product of labour. As a result:
     Real wages will fall
     Owners of land will benefit
     There will be an outflow of ‘native’ labour in search of higher wages in Australia
     The economy will be bigger, but average incomes will fall
     Resources will flow into low value service production.
    http://www.tailrisk.co.nz/documents/TheSuperdiversityMyth.pdf

  4. Blazer

     /  September 11, 2017

    NZ’s isolation is a plus not a minus imo.Far from the madding ..crowd.Technology dilutes negatives of isolation.

    • sorethumb

       /  September 11, 2017

      That is just silly. The NZIER argued that a bigger population would make us richer, therefore the madding crowd arrives with us. Population increase is government policy.
      Transport is expensive (importing components and exporting). The whole agglomeration argument is predicated on proximity.
      Julie Fry’s Treasury Paper 14-10 states: Based on a large body of new research evidence and practical experience, the consensus among policymakers now is that other factors are more important for per capita growth and productivity than migration and population growth. CGE modelling exercises for Australia and New Zealand have been influential in reshaping expectations.

  5. PDB

     /  September 11, 2017

    National party states the obvious which the MSM seem to be ignoring: “Across the four year period, the amount allocated through our policy announcements equates to 11 per cent ($1.98 billion) of the $17.34 billion reserved in the Pre-election Fiscal Update for new spending.

    We are therefore on track to stay well within the parameters of the pre-election update and reduce the government’s nett debt to $56 billion by 2022.

    This is in marked contrast to the Labour Party who by their own admission would have debt $11.4 billion higher at $68 billion by 2022.

    And that’s before you consider how unrealistic they are being about their revised fiscal plan and its projected zero budgets outside of education and health.

    Or the negative effects their policies would have on economic growth and tax revenues which would increase debt further.”

  6. Blazer

     /  September 11, 2017

    Debt was around 8 billion when Labour left office.So one could say that the Rockstar economy has been created by…spending other peoples….money!Bol.

    • Explain how you would have funded Social Services, Health and Education between 2008 and 2015 with out borrowing or worsening the economy by over taxing an economy recovering from recession which started under Cullen and Clark….

      You have been asked many times and never produce a credible response…. which means you don’t believe you own, oft repeated, meme

  7. Oliver Rackham

     /  September 12, 2017

    I’m always a bit suspicious about very neat and very contemporary-sounding quotes attributed to some mysterious person in the non-recent past that are suddenly discovered by somebody on the internet. The language in that quote sounds very contemporary; it does not sound like a politician speaking in 1931.

    So I did literally twenty seconds’ worth of research, and this is what I found: the words quoted above were spoken by Adrian Pierce Rogers, an American evangelical pastor who was born in 1931 and died in 2005. I do believe in miracles and maybe even glossolalia, but I don’t think that Dr Rogers had the gift of the right-wing sound-byte in the year of his birth. The quote comes from a 1984 sermon which was part of a series called “God’s Way to Health, Wisdom and Wealth.” Oh, and his doctorate was from Liberty University, the God-fearin’ Baptist seminary set up by Jerry Fallwell no less.

    In short,the quote is a product of the Reaganesque evangelicalism and anti-Soviet polemic of the mid-80s, not a prophetic voice calling to the National Party from the 1930s. Of course, that doesn’t mean that what it says is wrong – but its context should not be misrepresented by those too lazy to do a Google search.

    • I didn’t care where it came from or who said it. I thought it was something that would get a bit of comment going. Interesting that it seems to have been attributed to the wrong year but when the quote first appeared was irrelevant to the current time, it was a starter for an ideological discussion, that’s all.

      • Blazer

         /  September 12, 2017

        it is very relevant.Attributing that quote to 1931 gives it a historical foundation as if it’s relevance has been confirmed.

    • PDB

       /  September 12, 2017

      If YOU had done your research properly you would have discovered;

      “Rogers did not originate the quote at all. In fact, he did not claim to have originated it. Instead, he was citing almost verbatim a bit of anti-Soviet propaganda that had circulated in many magazines in the early 1960s.[15] The quote appeared before that in the Congressional Record of 1958, where they were appended to the record by U.S. Representative Bruce Alger of Texas’ 5th congressional district, based about Dallas.[16] Alger had taken the words from Gerald L. K. Smith, who had written them first in his magazine, The Cross and the Flag”. Wikipedia.

      • Oliver Rackham

         /  September 12, 2017

        No. You need to read more carefully. The quote that derived from anti-Soviet propaganda of the 1950s (according to Wikipedia) is the line “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” The rest of the quote is unambiguously attributed to Rogers (either in his sermon or his book or both). I will grant you that the whole passage is such a farrago of cliches that it could be written by almost anybody. But they are cliches of the 1980s.