Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
David Shearer's Opening Address-in-reply.
-
When you compare Marryat's compensation to other council "CEOs" of major NZ cities it's apparent they are all greatly overpaid. There's a cult of 'I'm special, I deserve more' - compounded as these special people are surrounded by others, who also feel they are worth more, and who often form a quorum that can vote themselves more.
I'm not surprised he's getting a beating in the media. This is a city where many folks are paying rates (you can apply for a 40% abatement!) on dwellings that are awaiting demolition. I hope The Press is naming and shaming each and every Councillor who voted for this tosh. When did the People's Republic of Christchurch become the Greedy Guzzling Trough? -
Great news on the section- but hell, what a year. Hope you have somewhere to relax over Christmas. It's a shame the babyhoods are so fraught. Toddlers are cool, though :)
-
(I'm white male and, I guess, middle-class. I'm probably blind to a lot of issues of privilege. Just to get that out of the way :))
If we're going to talk about class (and it might be invaluable- if we can move past the fraught part :)), yeah, it's absolutely necessary to define terms- in this case, what and who and how and why separate classes are constituted.
Does 19th century Marxist analysis translate neatly (and usefully) to 21st C NZ? I don't think it's neat, at any rate. But that might be just because I don't understand it properly :)
I think it's sposed to be:
upper-class = nobility
middle class = ownership of significant capital from which they can derive income (which could be a business, factory, shop, farm etc but also maybe in some cases (doctor, lawyer) include intellectual capital.
Working class = no ownership of working capital
If there's a Kiwi 'upper-class' it's not about titles. Also, the nature of society and work has changed significantly (and is still changing... sometimes in the wrong direction) as are the rights and privileges of workers.
Not so long ago, when most people owned homes and held steady jobs, maybe it was reasonable to claim most Kiwis were middle-class. (This is, I'm pretty sure, what Reich and Obama and folks in the US mean by the term- it would include, eg auto-workers and shop assistants. No intention it be limited to owners of working capital. And workers with shares in a company, maybe; with their own homes; with considerable intellectual capital in experience and expertise- the boundaries don't seem to be neat, but maybe they never were.)
In NZ we now have a growing group sometimes called the 'working poor' - does this group map more usefully to marxist notions of 'working class'? What about the great bulk of what is sometimes called the 'underclass'- is this different because it is defined more by not working than by working?
Gio- how would you divide NZ up into class interests? Neatly, or messily? Any links to handy class analysis of 21st century NZ society?
Too many questions? I tried some analysis meself, and it all looked totally lame. Time for an expert opinion :) -
Ooooh. STV :)
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to martinb,
Yeah, totally.
I don’t understand the bitterness towards Cunliffe. Maybe he’s an unmitigated asshole, but I haven’t seen it. So far, he looks the better candidate: stronger, more articulate, keener, harder. Absent during the election? I saw more of him than Parker, King and Shearer combined. I have nothing against Shearer, and I’m happy to believe he’s charming and personable. But that’s not enough.
And if I wanted a clincher, it’s Cunliffe saying he’d want Shearer on his front bench, and Shearer not responding likewise. Anyone who thinks Labour have an excess of talent, and can afford to burn some off, I’d hesitate to put in charge of Peterborough St portaloo.
They are both needed. The true test of both- and Labour- will be after this little shopping-for-a-leader side-show is over. And I’d expect both- if they are truly worthy of the job- to knuckle down, win or lose, and work together. So long as they do- I’m not worried about which one wins. -
Up Front: The Up Front Guides:…, in reply to Rich Lock,
It’s an off-topic red herring after all.
Ahh, the cricket! :) Young Doug Bracewell is something, eh?
-
And Mana.... soooo close to getting Annette Sykes into parliament. I did want to see that!
-
-
A stimulus is a massive desperate gamble. If it works yippee, but we don’t do it again and again in the expectation that it will always work, because it won’t. Right now no one elsewhere in the developed world is prepared to take that gamble, we should probably pay attention to that sort of thing.
With one small statement you wipe out a generation or two of economic wisdom? Not so fast, young master! You are exceeding your fledgling powers!*
Here’s another way of looking at it: if the stimulus involves (as it should) thoughtful spending on things that will provide a good, long-term benefit (education, primary health, children’s health, public transport, broadband internet maybe?) whatever happens to the global economy, how can we lose?
(If, on the other hand, it involves more cheap loans to bankers, great highways to nowhere, and tax breaks for the already affluent- then you’re not only pretty much guaranteed to lose, you could also give the whole stimulus idea a bad name. Not that anyone would want to do that :))
*unless you are a well qualified and experienced economist. In which case, I respectfully disagree with your analysis :)