Posts by Jeremy Eade
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The selling off of prime assets like electricity and telecommunications, was it not an admission of managerial incompetence
Managerial incomptence is a symptom of organisational incomptence, we now can say it is a sad condition of all potential organisations, regardless of who owns them.
At least with public ownership there is an ability to apply a level opf transparency that only gets seen in the private sector moments before a major, scareaming crash. The selling off of assets was a short term boost to the economy, a boost which has long fucking gone. Telecommunications are very expensive.and Toady,that sounds weird. Whats' the opposite of a toady? What the fuck is a toady? It doesn't sound good. You the toady man .
-
Hard News: A Capital Idea?, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Yeh, the charlies sales is a remarkable story, a company with some dramas but ultimately a pretty decent product.The sale is not really great for the nation long term as far as i understand.
It finally got into Aussie , the goldmine for a local company, which is what we need companies to do .Yet like Manchester United seeing a great potential talent , the big boys snap it up to ensure they stay big .
Stefan is to be applauded for his vision, the dude seems to have grown up within a FMCG industry,seen a few seasons, he understands the market numbers.
He was very educated to the turnover you can gain by taking even small market share of FMCG giants. Get enough credit, take shelf space for a long period and ultimately some CEO of a multinational will quite rationally buy that space back
-
Teachers do important work too, but they aren't holding anywhere near as much responsibility or liability
Just huge influences over your childs development, nothing special.
-
also Rik,
I can't help thinking if we met we probably would have comment agreements on most things that bring value to our lives.
It's just these economics are doing my head in.:)
-
I'm not throwing stones bro, I'm amazed and confused at the thinness of right wing economic theory.
Super Special Needs Scotsman Paul Reynolds gets to live fiscal life like a king.Taxing him more aggressively will not change his lifestyle one bit unless he is basically financially illiterate.The tax take of an individual is not the focus, the take home pay is the focus. That's where you do your living.
Saint Paul and his family are worried about losing some disposables and according to you we may lose him to country X . So he is taking home $5000 a week and I reduce that to $4000.00 a week, (actually he's taking much more than that home a week hence the need to get real.) Rationally he is still uber wealthy. His financial dominace over a teacher is still stunning. This is because the maximum wage has been blown out through severe political lobbying ; by those with the money to have a lobbyist.Rationally it makes sense. I think you have more of an emotional attachment to your theories (?) I think you know this as you don't have a supported view. Do you have a problem with poor people getting money, I don't know. A vulgar charge. I am out of answers.
I like these threads because there is a drive for facts, answers and strategys. You like them too. So by our own combined logic of thread preference the views of these citizens should be taken with the maturity in which they are offered. As you say , the p.a threads are massively supportive of higher taxes for those blown out salaries. So WHY ?
-
Rik I'm confused. Here's why. I am not ideologically left. Man, I've repped for so many major companies over the years; to know deep down I have no ideology. I just
need money.I like to read this website because
1) Russell is a rare talent in this country. I guy who delivers stories with intellegence, an understanding of the recent politics and history and some refreshing empathy for the growing poverty in this country .
2) I like the public address threads , they are good hard talk that generally gets done without too many bruises once you work out whose who, and in context of New Zealand threads has some amazing information delivered by some fine academics and intellects and personable policy wonks.
This thread has delivered you nearly all the information that you need to understand why the rational mind would support the re-introduction of higher taxes on the very wealthy.
Rik, you've got to put up an arguement, with figures, and wealth growth stats or anything, or quite frankly be cool and concede.
This is a debate that goes around in circles every year, one side produces figures, the other goes quiet, moody and then bitterly questions you on how thick the hair really is on that secret business chest of dominace we all should have.
Literally our political view here seems to have been dominated by media scaremongers for too long, and now I quite honestly am frustrated and a little shocked to be fucking honest with those who are in love/like/agreeance on National / Act right wing economics .
I want higher tax rates for the rich baecuse it makes fucking sense. Those upper bracket taxes were reduced on a "trickle down concept", that was marketed hard politically by both parties .They were a fantasy of a noble, moral and caring wealthy uber class that only wanted to gain more wealth so in order to trickle it down on the middle and lower salaried workers. Everyone wins. That didn't happen.
There is a stationary glut of money in a few hands , that money needs to reappear very soon or things will get rough for folks whose disposable income is either O or a negative weekly sum, hello loan sharks ,begging and theft considerations.
I look at graphs, history, read commentary . I've been doing this for decades and
right wing economics has a critical reputation that frankly sucks.It's not hardcore taking more tax from the top especially after it had been so dramatically reduced from the eighties onwards. It's not a hardcore policy, we may need to do some hardcore realignmeat of the economy but changing tax rates back
is just sensible economics in 2011. -
Damian,
Which N.Z business people in particular do you fear would leave and how would they do it ?
I guess I'm with the higher taxers. I can't understand your proposition. The facts don't reflect your predictions. I can't begin to understand the defence of tax laws made by strange parliaments that don't exist anymore unless those tax laws make sense
The economy is busted, is that hard to say.It busts a lot, too much in my opinion: because a busted economy starts to entrench poverty pretty fast and that will cost.
We need to start taxing back the capital that has been created in our recent boom years to fund all the good things in our society.
Reading everyones terrific writing I believe this to be true:
That since the Eighties onwards the richer have got richer and yet delivered a poorer society overall .This surely defeats the purpose and logic of rewarding them with money. The results are getting worse every year.
-
Tax discussion is a real hard twister of a subject, the discussion on tax has been framed in a way that we feel we are hurting someone when we even think about a new tax but never the other way around, that is how could it benefit long term.
The housing market is a huge infrastructure market. It provides the private investor the opportunity to get in amongst the huge economic activity it produces but private enterprise can't say it invented housing demand.It's an ancient market.
Housing , or lack of it is a social concern, a vulgar description for a lot of domestic chaos.
Many of our core economic domestic drivers are based on natural infrastructure activity. These are strong domestic markets full of well paid bosses and owners that feed of our invisible but huge socialist economic drivers. Our combined tax drives so many of our small island activities. Well done to the socialist part of the economy eh, still standing. Worthy of more consideration surely?
The Infrastructure market needs to be harnessed and understood as the core of all future economic stability, here at least. The providers of infrastructure should understand that these are social markets and not the marketing managers dream of "massively untapped new blue oceans of market share" .
-
I or buy a TV keeping a Harvey Norman salesman(person) in a job (good)?
Or maybe the government could make T.V's and the dude could become a highly paid international modern tradesman. Big Store Retail is hardwork and poorly paid.
-
Hard News: A Capital Idea?, in reply to James Butler,
I do, do a lot of wishing , true , but it's a pretty good story, the sham of the economy. It's not going to go away until it gets fixed.