If National wins ...

[Banksie]

haha, okay I have found it. You were actually quoting whaleoil, quoting Mike Smith, and erroneously included Mr Slater's comments on the matter. (http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/06/mi...mantra-misery/)

May I suggest you are the one trying to manipulate, or did you just make a mistake?

[BlackPeter]

Yip. Lived and worked in Singapore over a ten year period. Found it a little too hot.

If I read your argument right, BP, you're saying "that Singapore's economic growth is a result of their taxation system".

Bit simplistic don't you think?

What about their compulsory superannuation fund that funds huge amounts of development in Singapore? Or the fact that's so massive and earns so much that the govt doesn't need to do many things ours does because the Fund does it and owns the assets created? Or perhaps the fact that Singapore's geographic location means the investment in its huge port infrastructure was going to be a sure fire winner?

Maybe if you'd said - "that Singapore's taxation system is a result of their economic policies" - then I'd largely be agreeing with you.

Hi Belg, yes - agree with your views on the heat .. can hit you like a hammer!

Looking into the argument - I didn't say that Singapore's low taxes are the only parameter which helped them to achieve their economical success. Yes, this would it make a bit simplistic. However, they are part of a very successful economical package. Sure - their geographic position in SEA helps, but than, they always have been there (well, if we ignore continental shift for a moment), but they haven't been successful prior to their economic reforms including the low tax rates).

Same thing with ACT's proposal - it does sound like a great idea which (I presume) is backed by other successful liberal economic policies. And hey - it looks certainly fresher and more intelligent than getting all the socialist torture instruments back out the box: screw the rich, increase existing taxes and invent some more of them ... hey I don't know any (comparable) country where this socialist recipe actually worked, but it looks like Labour wants to do it all again.

[Banksie]

Same thing with ACT's proposal - it does sound like a great idea which (I presume) is backed by other successful liberal economic policies.

I guess that is one of the problems when deciding who to vote for. It is difficult to see how all their policies fit together, the voters just get the sound bites. And I hate they way policy is drip fed. I would prefer for them to get it all out there and give us plenty of time to compare and debate it.

I think we need some fresh and more intelligent thinking applied to how parties campaign, not just to their economic policies.

[Aaron]

I guess that is one of the problems when deciding who to vote for. It is difficult to see how all their policies fit together, the voters just get the sound bites. And I hate they way policy is drip fed. I would prefer for them to get it all out there and give us plenty of time to compare and debate it.

I think we need some fresh and more intelligent thinking applied to how parties campaign, not just to their economic policies.

I guess we can go back to the electorate for that one. If you put all your policies out early the opposition can put their negative spin on it or highlight all the downside and the general population will buy into the negative spin. Better to wow the voters a couple of days out from the election before they have a chance to think and change their mind again. To be honest I am one who doesn't read the policies in any great detail.
Waiting to get the herald liftout summarizing all the different parties major policies then making a call. Normally based on what party gives me the most. Although I would like to think that self interest isn't the only factor affecting my decision, there are some policies that are good for NZ that might be a bit hard to swallow like further subsidising tertiary education and investing in the youth/future of NZ.

[BlackPeter]

You would presume incorrectly.

How do you know? Any insider knowledge you want to share with us?

[BlackPeter]

I'd like to see far more. I'd like to legislation to stop the nonsense. Maybe it'll happened in my lifetime? Unlikely. All political parties have to pander to the status quo. And the rich, aka status quo, simply won't allow it.

Ouch ...

Hi Belg. I certainly would second your (and Banksie's) desire for some improved party campaigns in NZ. However looking into the reasons why you think it doesn't happen in New Zealand - I honestly think you are wearing some serious blinders.

When arriving at New Zealand's shores (coming from Europe), I was shocked by the lack of political debate here and by the way how constituents are spoon-fed by political parties. I think part of this culture might be too much adaptation of the US system (vote for the best looking person), and part of it is probably caused by the British tendencies to put more emphasis on the game than on the outcome and to keep discussions focussed on the weather and sports anyway.

Believe me - there are a lot more rich people in continental Europe than here, but the political information and debate is orders of magnitude better.

[westerly]

Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

[Cuzzie]

Yes you used italics in the beginning, but check the end of your post. I went and found the original article in the Standard to verify it.



Mike Smith's bit ends with the sentence I have put in bold. You add a bit and then put in the byline "- The Standard", which implies [applies not implies] to the reader that all of the above came from the standard ?

I am just trying to point out why you keep getting misunderstood.

Edit: What does this even mean, I cannot make sense out of it, Like I told you Banksie, the problem with your manipulation will always be the written word

Edit:Edit: Here is the link to the article http://thestandard.org.nz/communication-upgrade-needed/, ironically titled Communication upgrade needed.

OMFG you have got to be kidding. You really have to be hurting buddy and to think you have scored some kind of points over me. Yes, this is a direct copy & paste from Whale Oil, so what. You asked me to put in italics and I already had. I didn't add anything near the bottom above The Standard sign off because the copy & paste, my copy & paste by me not you from Whale Oil, included more than the original article by Mike Smith. Right at the very bottom, clearly it is my comments. Whale Oil also added something at the beginning - so what. It is my post not yours so please try to stop telling me how I must post for me in your style. You are some kind of control freak Banksie. Add that to your little games that you play. You wont make any headway with me and I will always point out you agenga. BTW, sort out your grammar. Are you for real? I've seen this befor from belg? Hmmmm. I'm so onto buddy.

Forget about your mind games read the article, it is factual and to the point want-to-be master manipulator.

[elZorro]

Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

About 30 years ago we drove into that station on a family trip. I think the roads were gravel, and there were big mobs of sheep everywhere. Lots of workers houses, at least 30. Now it has been marketed as a dairy platform with ancillary uses. It's the sort of country that could dry out quite a bit, but irrigation would sort that out. I think it's a bit over 13,000Ha, but some of it is conservation estate. http://www.lochinver.co.nz/property.html

Stevensons owned it for 20 years or so, not a bad place to park money perhaps, and now they hope to create something like a super industrial park near Auckland, creating 8000 permanent jobs (well, the new businesses would do that). All in all, this is not a bad swap for 13000Ha which will not ever be prime dairying land, and which cannot support as many people, actually far less. If it ends up being run as a giant sheep/beef operation, it's fairly inefficient, and that limits the employee numbers, and the training and export potential.

I'll still be sad to see it going into overseas control. It's in a relatively accessible part of NZ, this is not some remote, barren but scenic sheep station in the South Island. Landcorp could have bought it, no harm done.

[Cuzzie]

Steven Joyce is happy, John Key is happy, while Federated Farmers are not.
Opposition to the sale of 17000 hectare Lochinvar Station to the same Chinese firm that bought the Crafar farms is described as xenophobic by Joyce.
Overseas investment is good for NZ Joyce says but what he is really saying is National will take any overseas money available no matter whether it is in NZ' s best interests or not.
It well maybe good for NZ for overseas interests to establish a factory or even buy an existing enterprise as far as providing jobs etc. However in the case of farms what Key and Joyce are saying is NZ farmers are not as capable as overseas interests in maximizing farm production.
Labour and other parties have said they would prevent the sale of farms to foreign interests. Something that is long overdue.

westerly

Here we go. Tell me westerly, were any farms big small or massive sold to non-New Zealanders when Labour were in power? Also, I see you don't complain about American or English ownership in our farms. Do you have a problem with the Chinese? Which nation buys most of our real estate? Should there be a law against Chinese buying our land but everybody else can or should we ban all overseas investment. Would New Zealanders be blocked from investing overseas because we don't allow investment in the future? I thought I'd post Banksie style to see how others enjoy it. Two more days of this westerly befor I start changing your answers to fit my posts.