I think one of the big problems with the bailout was that it didn’t come with consequences for those who had caused the problem in the first place
Exactly, but the consequences for all those who were blameless are far from being inconsequential , and it's far from over.
Saving the financial system was the goal –
I don't agree , but I guess we'll just have to wait and see if it has been saved by QE etc. to infinity.
If it doesn't all crash and burn , and the elite are all safe in their bolt-holes , while the 99% are left with sweet fanny adams , then we'll call that a success, right?
Shame about the collateral damage.
I think that you may be on to it.
Jong Ki is a 1%er ; always was.
Your duty is to survive.
It does and it’s amongst us every day in every way.
Welcome to the Hunger Games.
Yeh that’s right ; we are all in the game now.
” The widening chasm between rich and poor is traceable to the policies that were adopted in 2008. That’s why things are so fu**ed up : it’s because of the “surge in paper wealth, fueled by the trillions of dollars pumped into the financial system by central banks via zero interest rate and “quantitative easing” policies.”
In other words, it’s all deliberate. Robbing the poor and giving to the rich is all part of the plan.
That strikes me as an important point, and one that’s worth mulling over for awhile; that crushing the middle class isn’t an accident. It’s what they want. It’s the policy.”
Immediately it becomes thorny.
Some natural resources e.g. soil, river beds, lake water are in private hands and have property rights embedded.
Other natural resources e.g. the water flowing in the privately -owned river bed are not the subject of a property right.
Pollutants e.g. Nitrate and phosphate , sediment etc. entrained in the water flowing over the privately held river bed , come under a different branch of common law viz torts.
The common ground is that the water in the river belongs to nobody,must be accepted by the landowner who owns the river bed, but the pollution in the water, if it can be shown to be causing nuisance to the river bed owner, does not have to be accepted, even though few would have the resources to bring about a successful action for damages against the polluter(s).
One wonders at what point , if ever , do the Greens seek public input into what sort of policies would attract wider support.
Interviewing the inner circle will not produce the answers.
Given the “dirty dairy” antipathy ; clean (for wading)rivers legislation inadequacy; one might have expected improved support levels from right across the board.
Is this the best the Greens can expect?
Some have suggested a return to a purely environmental plank would be the way to garner wider support. I don’t think that we will see a narrower, more concentrated focus from the current cadre, but I would be happy to be proved wrong.
Yeah nah you could be right Joe.
I was just having the same thought myself : maybe I’m too cynical.
Hearing loud volleys of heavy cannon (like . . thunderous) at 6 a.m. this morning , reverberating around P.N. and environs , I was fully prepared to witness flights of noisy Iriquois choppers , plus anything else that might possibly be airworthy, all designed to remind the population that we are a nation at WAR.
“We must have stronger anti-terrorist legislation and a seat on the Security Council”
Cynical . . . much?
Are there any indications that the Green Party is having a review of its electoral performance?
Given the widely-shared concern over the state of the NZ environment, I find it most interesting that the Greens lost traction, but perhaps the conspicuous silence that has prevailed since election night simply means that the Greens deal with these matters "in-house".
Why do people hate on folks who take on the thankless task of revealing unpleasant truths?
You mean folks like David Shearer ?