Polity: Unity, success: Chicken, egg?
107 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Pharmachick, in reply to
Okay Fraser, that was really funny! I laughed. And you're probably right.
-
Pharmachick, in reply to
Sorry for going missing yesterday (work). I think communism is a failed ideology because (1) humans are not perfect enough to all settle for begin equal [so some try to be "more equal than others" H/T Orwell) and (2) I worry that communism doesn't promote excellence in all, but tends towards central distribution (i.e. averageness for all) and that's just not good enough for us as human beings to aspire to - excellence for all (whatever your definition of excellence it).
-
Pharmachick, in reply to
Thanks for that, I thought the cartoon was directly aimed at me - see my reply to Moz to clarify about "winning" ...not the Charlie Sheen type :-)
-
a “solicitor’s loan”
Where a solicitor arranged for their cash-rich clients to lend money to ones that needed a mortgage, in essence acting as a more-or-less unregulated bank.
This then morphed into finance companies, which then collapsed. Because you don't need regulation by the government, oh no sir.
For the latest iteration of this form of stupid, see peer-peer lending.
-
Danielle, in reply to
But how is making sure all people in a society have access to warm homes and affordable food suddenly "communism"? No one in this thread was advocating abolishing private property.
-
Sacha, in reply to
making sure all people in a society have access to warm homes and affordable food
sounds excellent to me
-
Pharmachick, in reply to
I simply don't believe that welfare recipients have a right to the same standard of living as people that work for their living.
-
keeaa, in reply to
So you believe that if you lose your job and can't find another one for some time, or if you get too sick to work for a long period, the health and welfare of you and your children should suffer?
And don't tell me you have provided for just such an eventuality - in this hypothetical (for you) scenario, you haven't been earning enough to do so.
-
Danielle, in reply to
Again: no one's arguing that they're gonna get a weekly cleaner to do their bathrooms and twice-yearly beachside holidays in Rarotonga. We're talking about not getting rheumatic fever and not feeling like every week it's a choice between bread and milk and the electricity bill. Do you really think "welfare recipients" are kicking living standard ass, right now?
ETA: and of course looking after kids IS work.
-
And then party leadership has carried on talking about things like, well, housing and the future of work and the like.
Point well made Deborah. I had noticed, and entirely support, the close attention to the future of work and also the debate on housing. I guess my lens on NZ politics is a little narrow, however, as I saw as much from Quin as I did on these other more significant matters.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
name the back office Labour peeps who are bastions of competence. Go on.
I'll not name those that I particularly regard as such, but there's a number, Salmond is definitely one of them. That said, their specific influence will always be limited relative to Caucus, Leadership and the broader membership (as it should be).
-
Sacha, in reply to
Fair enough. So who is responsible for the party's obvious and ongoing lack of strategic nous for many years now? President, Secretary, Board, Caucus Leader, Caucus, Chief of Staff?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Fair enough. So who is responsible for the party’s obvious and ongoing lack of strategic nous for many years now? President, Secretary, Board, Caucus Leader, Caucus, Chief of Staff?
In particular, Mike Munro and Heather Simpson left some big shoes to fill after they left.
-
Sacha, in reply to
but I doubt either of them had much say on strategy
-
Yamis, in reply to
I simply don’t believe that welfare recipients have a right to the same standard of living as people that work for their living.
Boogie man stuff. I teach the children of people on benefits. By the dozen. They don't live anywhere near the same standard of those who work for their living. In fact I teach kids with learning disabilities that would qualify them for teachers aides but their parents can't afford the fee to get them tested and diagnosed.
It has nothing to do with communism.
It's simply part of living in a functioning society. If people don't want to live in an actual functioning society then they are welcome to pull up a deserted island and Bear Grylls the rest of their life.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Thinking that everyone should work for a living IS a communist ideal. They had a real problem with idlers. Most especially the idle rich who not only don't have to work, but also have a higher standard of living than workers. While I don't agree with them about the sanctity of work, I do think that if I were a work-worshipper I'd focus my ire at the rich and powerful rather than the poor and weak.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It’s simply part of living in a functioning society. If people don’t want to live in an actual functioning society then they are welcome to pull up a deserted island and Bear Grylls the rest of their life.
Or for that matter, living behind razor wires and concrete barriers, and travel to work and school in armoured cars. Kind of like how it’s done in Johannesburg or Lima or La Paz or Caracas. At best it’s a symptom of a bitterly polarised society, at worst it’s the first step to a neo-feudal state, even a failed state.
From my past experiences, the dole was hardly a lifestyle choice; if anything, it felt a lot more like house arrest. Those on welfare already have enough soul-crushing lecturing as it is from the usual culture warmongers, especially those with disabilities and mental illness. What they need is a second chance to climb the ladder – in practice that means things like boosting apprenticeships or the ability to work from home. No amount of School of Hard Knocks from Key/Bennett/Tolley et al is going to fix a thing.
A generation or two ago, people in the current ‘bludger’ demographic would have been in factories and meatworks – industries that just happened to be at the whim of globalisation (including Britain no longer needing our produce in 1973) and mechanisation. In those days, such industries weren’t the most efficient – being propped up with tariffs and subsidies – but they did allow the unskilled to work and skill their way up. Even white-collar jobs are increasingly not immune.
And what if we were to end up with the logical extreme of a situation where robots and the Internet of Things produce flawless products, but not enough people with the money to buy them? CGP Grey’s Humans Need Not Apply comes to mind, as does an anecdote by the UAW’s Walter Reuther: "how are you going to get these robots to buy cars?"
Which neatly ties back to the Future of Work commission and ICT apprenticeships. It goes to show that Labour has some neat policy ideas, now if they could stop looking like the Peoples’ Front of Judea…
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Thinking that everyone should work for a living IS a communist ideal. They had a real problem with idlers. Most especially the idle rich who not only don’t have to work, but also have a higher standard of living than workers.
Hell, the Soviets likely sent ‘bludgers’ to the Siberian gulags. As Joe Stalin supposedly said, “one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”.
While I don’t agree with them about the sanctity of work, I do think that if I were a work-worshipper I’d focus my ire at the rich and powerful rather than the poor and weak.
George Carlin said it better than I ever could: "The upper class: keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. The middle class: pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there…just to scare the shit out of the middle class."
-
In 1979, it was widely predicted that automation would reduce work and result in a leisured society, where people worked a 3 or 4 day week.
Instead, automation took away some of the industrial jobs, while in many other cases the labour cost was just reduced, onshore or offshore - why buy a $200k robot if you can get semi-slaves to do the job for $1 an hour.
The rest of the slack was taken up by middle-class make-work jobs, a process which has gone on since the early 20th century. Instead of a slightly over-manned single electricity supplier, we now have an artificial bureacracy of "electricity retailers". Instead of car builders, we have car salespeople. Instead of doctors and nurses, we have drug reps and private healthcare managers.
I'd recommend reading David Graeber The utopia of rules on this subject.
-
Tom Semmens, in reply to
one thing that troubled me was his use of the Napier/Hastings merger issue, where the more numerous and wealthier Napier doesn’t want a bar of merging with the less numerous and poorer Hastings.
Hastings district has a bigger population than Napier and includes posh Havelock North and much of the local squatocracy in it’s ranks. Animosity between Napierand Hastings goes back a long way, made worse by Labour voting Napier, which was near bankruptcy after inadequate government support for it’s rebuild post the 1931 earthquake from the conservative government of the time (hey Christchurch!) having it’s debts written off by the 1935 Labour government while conservative voting Hatings did not. Then when the Napier hospital was closed Hastings did a nice little dolchstoßlegende and supported the governments consolidation to their ugly little shithole in Hastings.
The whole amalgamation issue though is not just muddied by historic grievances. The long and deep and justified mistrust by Napier of Hastings has been aggravated by the outrageous behaviour of Hasting mayor Lawrence Yule, who clearly sees relatively debt free Napier as the answer to Hasting’s fat debt laden ass. Yule’s approach all along has been to try and use this governments draconian and anti-democratic local government amalgamation legislation to ram through a forced merger. For many Napier residents with long memories (and believe me, we have long memories down there) this is just another short termist dolchstoßlegende from a desperate mayor and debt laden council. Personally, I am going to vote against the local government equivalent of being tied to a corpse and thrown into Hawkes Bay.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I'd recommend reading David Graeber The utopia of rules on this subject.
Thanks for the heads up. His On the phenomenon of bullshit jobs has been something of a landmark piece for me and others. I've been rather surprised - and heartened - by the sometimes unlikely people who continue to discover and recommend it.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Personally, I am going to vote against the local government equivalent of being tied to a corpse and thrown into Hawkes Bay.
Interesting stuff Tom, though I'm mildly disappointed to find no mention of Flaxmere.
-
Interesting stuff Tom, though I’m mildly disappointed to find no mention of Flaxmere
Flaxmere never existed. It’s been erased and quietly forgotten, like a third world shanty town that offended the sensibilities of the local nobs who peddle Hawkes Bay to the like minded for it’s “lifestyle”. Originally built on “useless” river shingles, Flaxmere is being slowly bulldozed to make way for vineyards and erased from the lexicon. “There is no third world poverty in Hawkes Bay, oh and have you seen Sir Paul Holmes house?” It s called modern New Zealand, which scarily resembles 19th century Britain.
Amalgamation will only happen when the locals are allowed to come up with a plan that assuages the multi-generational distrust between the two cities. My view is a united council with the same number of councillors as now and with a 30 year gerrymander to ensure both the old cities have an equal number of councillors would be a start. Then in thrity years, review the whole thing.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
Flaxmere is being slowly bulldozed to make way for vineyards and erased from the lexicon.
There's still Splash Planet.
-
(Joe, you beat me to the link :-)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.