Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The USA maximises its markets when other places are more free and more democratic, because America doesn't make much anything for poor people.
OK, I withdraw my benefit of doubt. You're just mistaken, rather than misunderstood. American makes a hell of a lot of things for poor people. Bullets, for instance, sell best where they are used most. Also, you don't need any skill whatsoever to sell debt to people. And you can certainly maximize your own markets if you deprive other people of choice by projecting force against your economic rivals.
But again, I think that America is still a long term loser running such a strategy, and would actually be better off in a more peaceful, and more democratic world, as would everyone else. But the particular elites that run the place don't see things the same way.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
I'm a bit late to this, but surely Danyl was taking the piss?
Perhaps initially so, but it's a convenient way to say something just for the sake of argument, and it's not a no-brainer answer.
Sometimes change just to take a punt the other way does make sense. It makes sense in Egypt, right now. Even without a clear alternative plan, there could be reason to just change things, if they are not working.
That said, it's not by definition what swing voters do. Some of the reason to change what one votes for could be because the parties have changed their positions. Sometimes it's because I have changed position. Sometimes it's because the world has changed. Sometimes it's because of some particularly bad individuals in an otherwise good party. And any combination of those reasons.
Tory sensibility hurt in aisle four. Quick, the violins!
You beast, calling recordari a Tory. I don't recall him claiming to vote Tory, just that he'd only voted for Labour policy once. He might have voted for their hot chicks many times.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Matthew Poole,
National could easily fuck with compulsory saving, by making it optional and selling it as "personal choice". People might even buy the lie.
You misunderstand me. I mean they can't just take the money. Unlike what they can do, for instance, with our hard earned state owned utilities.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
I am so OVER comfortably well-off people pontificating about how the workers just don't know what's good for them.
Heh, well, again, that doesn't make the pontificators wrong. That's why we have these dialectics, to flesh out the truth of the matter.
There are some genuine advantages to compulsory saving that make it quite different to trying to do it yourself. For starters, it can't be beaten out of you by a loan shark when you fail to make the repayments you used to pay for your kids dinner. Second, you don't have to be a strong-willed person to do it, which is quite a rare characteristic. Third, particularly if it is incentivized, the returns are much better. Fourth, you don't need to be canny to avoid getting scammed if the government backs the investment.
Yes, sometimes you are down to your last dollar, and seeing that you have $50,000 in some untouchable trust could be quite hard to bear. But that is why we have welfare.
Considering how much of a percentage of what we earn is happily torn straight from us to fund things that politicians get to decide about, I don't think a bit extra that is actually your money and always will be, going somewhere safe from all interference (including the most likely kind, your own), is actually that hard a sell. If it were sweetened by a corresponding tax cut (which would actually be completely affordable considering what it is funding), would that make poor people feel better about it? Something for Labour/Green policy makers to think about.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Rich Lock,
India and China have huge percentages of phd's and engineers, compared to the 'old west'.
They also have huge percentages of peasants. Despite the fact that their economies are heading in a better direction than they were, I still don't actually envy them. I wouldn't want to go and work in China. They've got a looong way to go before they can really be held up as the boilerplate for how we want our economies to be structured.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Danielle,
I can't really blame people on average incomes for being hostile to compulsory savings
I can't blame them, but they are wrong. If you're not planning for the future, you're not actually living within your means. But this is not a concept we readily accept here, partially because we have this idea that the government is going to look after the future. Well, if that's how we want it, compulsory saving is indeed one way they could be looking after our future, and it's also a way that's quite hard for successive governments to fuck with.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Jacqui Dunn,
Gives me a headache.
I'm continually amazed that so many really bright people even become teachers. They must have a passion for it, because it's hard work and not really well remunerated. The teaching itself is hard enough, let alone all the stupid accounting for it. I'm full of admiration.
But then again, I have to say, there is something to be said for being in such a workplace - at least your colleagues aren't know-nothing idiots, and there's a real feeling of common purpose. There must be daily, or even hourly hits of genuine satisfaction when some kid gets something, or does some fantastic work, and at the end of every year you can look back and think how far they all came.
It's what my Mum has always done. She's nearing retirement, and still the main thing she likes about teaching is the teaching. I'd say "the only thing", but that's not true - teachers do get good holidays.
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to recordari,
Guess ‘all of the above’ is not possible?
On the contrary, it's the norm.
-
Hard News: "Orderly transition" in #Egypt, in reply to Sacha,
That's hilarious
I'll give Angus the benefit of the doubt in suggesting that America's real interests are aligned with more democracy, if you extend those interests to include the entire population. They can at least compete in an open marketplace with other democracies. They've got no chance against impoverished places with no human rights, where labor costs next to nothing. But the interests of the ruling elites are not aligned with that ideal, that only costs them money.
There's also the massive war machine they have which demands strife and conflict, so common in oppressive regions. Obviously that war machine costs American taxpayers a ridiculous amount of money and they'd be so much richer without it. But the people who own the machine would not be.
-
Yes, I was thinking as I wrote that wild thought: "I bet there's no way any NZ bank could do that without borrowing the money offshore in turn".
Ah well, forget that. I doubt any government here will ever be strong enough to take on the banking sector. The US government sure couldn't. It's become the uber-government, and it's a greedy SOB.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 645 646 647 648 649 … 1066 Older→ First