sharetrader
Page 239 of 281 FirstFirst ... 139189229235236237238239240241242243249 ... LastLast
Results 2,381 to 2,390 of 2806
  1. #2381
    Quiet Observer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    How has SBQ self-exempted from the demands made of others?

    SBQ is a business owner and has other investments. That sounds like a good capitalist rather than a socialist or left-winger to me. Plenty of those on the right have social consciences and a desire for philanthropy too. Perhaps it is the attitude to the provision of shelter/residential housing that makes SBQ seem a left-winger to some? However I do understand that it does depend on the gauge used.
    Yes agreed Bjauck, depending on what gauge is used. But also, how one defines the labels on that gauge.

    However, you are inhibiting yourself by viewing the political spectrum & the broad concept of capitalism in binary format only.

    The political spectrum is simply a continuum/gauge which in effect loosely measures & labels how much State involvement there is in individual & societal life. It's commonly accepted that the further to the left of the spectrum one looks, the higher the expectation that the State will be involved in, controlling and "taking responsibility" for individual & societal actions & hence outcomes. Move away from the left and the expectation is that individuals (rather than the State) control and are responsible for their own actions and hence outcomes.

    Capitalism meanwhile doesn't neatly fit on one specific spot on the political spectrum. Capitalism is ubiquitous, it can be well in-play right across the political spectrum.

    Capitalism is the act of attempting to derive benefit from the use of available resources (e.g. human, energy, financial, time etc). We are ALL capitalists to varying degrees, regardless of our view to who should be taking responsibility for actions & outcomes.
    Xi Jinping & the CCP act in just as much (possibly even more) a capitalist manner than an Investment Banker in the Canary Islands, or TeslaGod & SBQ, for that matter.

    Coming back to your question re SBQ's political broadcast & how he self-exempted himself. Go back, and re-read his answers. There are numerous black holes in his thinking

    To assist further, once we cut out all the fluff, ask what do we 'know' so far?

    - His net worth is >$10,000,000
    - He owns a house which is mortgage free. Presumably this house won't be the cheapest in the lowest value suburb of ChCh? Regardless, he just like TeslaGod, will have experienced "massive financial gains" in recent times.
    - He has various other investments, including equities (but not residential housing assets).
    - During these "Everything Bubble" times the "massive financial gains" in equity markets have well & truly exceeded that of residential housing assets.
    - He owns a Tourism based business, which up-to Covid times has provided good income & likely "massive financial gains".

    Question: When he eventually moves that business on, for hopefully also "massive financial gains", will he stand by the standard he expects of residential Landlords and insist to pay a % of those gains to the State?

    - He has given himself an Autobahn's width of wriggle room with his argument, by not clearly defining what his "massive financial gains" are in $ or % returns. Where has he drawn that line and which side of that line does he sit one wonders?
    - That he hasn't proudly & boldly stated that he has stood by his beliefs & values & already actively acted on his belief that a CGT should be paid on any "massive financial gains" in NZ.

    In short, SBQ seems to be in a very very good position financially. Clearly in NZ's top 1%.
    And to be clear, I personally have no qualms with that per se, regardless of whether that financial wealth has primarily come through inheritance or through ethical 'hard/smart sweat & toil'. Well done!

    But I certainly have issues with sincere or confused lefties (often called Chardonnay drinking socialists), who from their relative "privileged position of financial wealth", continue glibly postering on what standards are best for everyone else. All whilst somehow being exempt to the same standards & principles themselves!
    Last edited by FTG; 02-10-2021 at 03:09 PM.
    Success is a journey AND a destination!

  2. #2382
    Senior Member TeslaGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Auckland the only city that matters with the best looking Investors and you know it.
    Posts
    911

    Default

    I'll add to the FTG post,

    In response to SBQ struggling >$10,000,000 tourism business.

    The Tourism industry pays there employees some of the lowest wage's in New Zealand.

    Many have laid staff off

    landlords still house them.
    Last edited by TeslaGod; 02-10-2021 at 02:02 PM.

  3. #2383
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Excellent post. Food for thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG View Post
    Yes agreed Bjauck, depending on what gauge is used. But also, how one defines the labels on that gauge.
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG View Post


    However, you are inhibiting yourself by viewing the political spectrum & the broad concept of capitalism in binary format only.
    Fair comment. I was responding to your reference to “left of centre”.




    The political spectrum is simply a continuum/gauge which in effect loosely measures & labels how much State involvement there is in individual & societal life. It's commonly accepted that the further to the left of the spectrum one looks, the higher the expectation that the State will be involved in, controlling and "taking responsibility" for individual & societal actions & hence outcomes. Move away from the left and the expectation is that individuals (rather than the State) control and are responsible for their own actions and hence outcomes.
    I agree the degree to which the state sets products standards, health and safety standards and provides a social welfare safety net is one strand in determining Left and Right.



    Capitalism meanwhile doesn't neatly fit on one specific spot on the political spectrum. Capitalism is ubiquitous, it can be well in-play right across the political spectrum.


    Capitalism is the act of attempting to derive benefit from the use of available resources (e.g. human, energy, financial, time etc). We are ALL capitalists to varying degrees, regardless of our view to who should be taking responsibility for actions & outcomes.
    Xi Jinping & the CCP act in just as much (possibly even more) a capitalist manner than an Investment Banker in the Canary Islands, or TeslaGod & SBQ, for that matter.
    I think I have quite a different understanding of the term “capitalism”. What you describe as capitalism, I would describe as commercial enterprise or commercialised exploitation. For me capitalism/socialism, as one strand behind the Right and Left comparison, defines more the ownership structure behind that enterprise. Capitalism indicates the private ownership of trade and industry with socialism indicating a socialised (government) ownership of trade and industry.


    All capitalists (and socialist) systems operate in countries which provide the limits (regulations, statutes, standards) within which commercial enterprises operate. How far these government regulations and statutes extend is another strand helping to define Left and Right.


    Coming back to your question re SBQ's political broadcast & how he self-exempted himself. Go back, and re-read his answers. There are numerous black holes in his thinking


    To assist further, once we cut out all the fluff, ask what do we 'know' so far?


    - His net worth is >$10,000,000
    - He owns a house which is mortgage free. Presumably this house won't be the cheapest in the lowest value suburb of ChCh? Regardless, he just like TeslaGod, will have experienced "massive financial gains" in recent times.
    - He has various other investments, including equities (but not residential housing assets).
    - During these "Everything Bubble" times the "massive financial gains" in equity markets have well & truly exceeded that of residential housing assets.
    - He owns a Tourism based business, which up-to Covid times has provided good income & likely "massive financial gains".


    Question: When he eventually moves that business on, for hopefully also "massive financial gains", will he stand by the standard he expects of residential Landlords and insist to pay a % of those gains to the State?


    - He has given himself an Autobahn's width of wriggle room with his argument, by not clearly defining what his "massive financial gains" are in $ or % returns. Where has he drawn that line and which side of that line does he sit one wonders?
    - That he hasn't proudly & boldly stated that he has stood by his beliefs & values & already actively acted on his belief that a CGT should be paid on any "massive financial gains" in NZ.


    In short, SBQ seems to be in a very very good position financially. Clearly in NZ's top 1%.
    And to be clear, I personally have no qualms with that per se, regardless of whether that financial wealth has primarily come through inheritance or through ethical 'hard/smart sweat & toil'. Well done!


    But I certainly have issues with sincere or confused lefties (often called Chardonnay drinking socialists), who from their relative "privildged position of financial wealth", continue glibly postering on what standards are best for everyone else. All whilst somehow being exempt to the same standards & principles themselves!


    As I understand it, SBQ has not bought more houses than he needs for housing his family. He has invested his investable equity into shares and business. As for the relative percentage paid in tax (both directly and indirectly) from the returns in investor housing versus the percentage paid in tax from a business or share investment, I cannot hazard a guess. It depends on the leverage involved, profits made, the numbers of people employed by the company and the reliance on returns from untaxed gains. It would certainly be interesting to know how much $100 invested in a typical NX50 company would produce annually in tax revenues (GST, income tax, etc) compared with $100 equity invested in a typical investment rental house, with its maintenance and servicing requirements)

    Is an investment in a business accretive whereas an investment in a rental house just out-bids and replaces a potential owner-occupier and therefore non accretive?


    I guess the relative weight NZ households have in investment housing versus share and business investment will indicate where the NZ fiscal and financial environment investment provides the best returns for risk involved.


    Last edited by Bjauck; 02-10-2021 at 02:38 PM.

  4. #2384
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    In response to TeslaGod's last post. My wealth was not inherited. The business has entirely been a father and son business for the past 2+ decades, and never had the need to employ anyone. We were fortunate to move product with a decent level of profit margin while having limited risk of new competitors coming in.

    In your previous previous post, your motive of "I don't care who is affected" profit mind is spoken like a George Soros. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Well for most of NZ, that's what they have done and quite simply they don't care about the # of homeless who sleep in cars around NZ.

    So my end game may not have a NZ in the picture as, one voice is not going to change much. I've seen too many rich people in NZ do nothing and gloat about their wealth. I can't change their minds. Retirement for my family so far is pointing to a Canadian outcome (because i'm biased) as the saying goes, you can't remove the stripes off a zebra and call it a horse. So I ask again Mr TeslaGod, what is your end game plan? Amass more wealth from your rental properties and give it all to the next generation? If so, that's a real pity. Even Gareth Morgan is a weasel by philanthropic standards.

  5. #2385
    Senior Member TeslaGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Location
    Auckland the only city that matters with the best looking Investors and you know it.
    Posts
    911

    Default

    2 man team to grow >$10 million dollar company.. you must have did a lot of over time, or sold some dam expensive tourism gift cards and tikis.

    I earned my 8 figure net worth with the help of our Central Bank and the middle class voter's..all 60% of them!

    Any who , I've already stated my end goal in the " how much is enough thread" and for some reason I upset a lot of people..hmmm me thinks I need to work on my communication a bit better.

    I'm always trying to be a better version of myself.. Cheerio my fellow capitalists!
    Last edited by TeslaGod; 02-10-2021 at 11:28 PM.

  6. #2386
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wellington, , New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBQ View Post
    .....In your previous previous post, your motive of "I don't care who is affected" profit mind is spoken like a George Soros. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Well for most of NZ, that's what they have done and quite simply they don't care about the # of homeless who sleep in cars around NZ.....

    Fortunately we have a socialist government that has quadrupled the social housing waiting list, is all good to place the homeless in motels etc, build more and more social housing. Billions in ingoing and ongoing costs. And that's just housing.

    I wonder who is paying for all that. I would say taxpayers will care. A lot.

  7. #2387
    Quiet Observer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post


    I think I have quite a different understanding of the term “capitalism”. What you describe as capitalism, I would describe as commercial enterprise or commercialised exploitation. For me capitalism/socialism, as one strand behind the Right and Left comparison, defines more the ownership structure behind that enterprise. Capitalism indicates the private ownership of trade and industry with socialism indicating a socialised (government) ownership of trade and industry.


    It's ok, you aren't the only one who has had a muddled view of pure capitalism in the context of the political spectrum. Previously & for many years, students of political sciences at Uni were getting incorrectly taught capitalists were always right-wingers!

    As an aside George Soros, mentioned in posts below, is a classic example of a left winger operating as a capitalist. Arguably one of the most successful & "ruthless" capitalists to operate in the last 30 years, but also openly a strong advocate & supporter of socialist ideology.

    Yes as you put it, there may be some indication, but in reality capitalism & private ownership aren't necessarily joined at the hip. Yes, In a free-market economy that may be a more natural outcome, but the further left you go on the political spectrum, the less significance given to "ownership" of capital/property. In left leaning jurisdictions the far more significant influencing factor is who actually controls the property/capital.
    Example: Think, China - Jack Ma

    In NZ we are now more regularly seeing the left Labour government screwing the scrum for property (commercial & residential) landlords. "Sure, you own the property, but we will control what you capitalists can do or not do with the property". Examples: Fixed rents, interest deductibility, forced rent negotiations with commercial tenants etc etc.
    Last edited by FTG; 03-10-2021 at 03:22 PM.
    Success is a journey AND a destination!

  8. #2388
    Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    4,663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FTG View Post


    It's ok, you aren't the only one who has had a muddled view of pure capitalism in the context of the political spectrum. I know previously for many years, students of political sciences at Uni were getting incorrectly taught capitalists were always right-wingers! …
    Just to be clear, I do not agree that I have had a muddled view with respect to capitalism or socialism on the political spectrum. The support of private ownership, as opposed to state ownership, of business and trade is one clear indicator of being right wing, certainly with respect to economic policy.

    One can be “right wing” with respect to business control and economic policy, whilst being “left wing” with respect to social policy. Some Liberal Parties can have policies that reflect that. Muldoon was perhaps an example of a “right wing” socially conservative politician who supported “left wing” state involvement in the economy.

  9. #2389
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    6,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjauck View Post
    Just to be clear, I do not agree that I have had a muddled view with respect to capitalism or socialism on the political spectrum. The support of private ownership, as opposed to state ownership, of business and trade is one clear indicator of being right wing, certainly with respect to economic policy.

    One can be “right wing” with respect to business control and economic policy, whilst being “left wing” with respect to social policy. Some Liberal Parties can have policies that reflect that. Muldoon was perhaps an example of a “right wing” socially conservative politician who supported “left wing” state involvement in the economy.
    Right wing - left wing, and other political labels have become so muddled, often almost interchangable - that there is no way of knowing what the user means half the time.

  10. #2390
    Quiet Observer
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    New Zealand.
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Right wing - left wing, and other political labels have become so muddled, often almost interchangable - that there is no way of knowing what the user means half the time.
    Agreed, and as for anyone that holds muddled views on any given area of study or discipline, we are often quite unaware of the weak epistemological framework we hold.
    Last edited by FTG; 03-10-2021 at 04:46 PM.
    Success is a journey AND a destination!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •