Discussion:
Excellent article
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-05-09 21:48:08 UTC
Permalink
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
JohnO
2020-05-10 01:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Orams vs Peters... quiet reason vs noisy bluster...

Peters is a Muldoonist dinosaur. A dangerous fool who appeals to people who have lost their cognitive abilities, or never had any.
Crash
2020-05-10 03:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Orams vs Peters... quiet reason vs noisy bluster...
Peters is a Muldoonist dinosaur. A dangerous fool who appeals to people who have lost their cognitive abilities, or never had any.
Peters has been out of sight with very little media focus since the
lock-down. He needed to float an idea to regain media attention - and
as nearly always he succeeded care of Oram and others. Peters has
floated an idea whose time is long gone (thanks to Rogernomics, most
of which still endures) and Oram has provided evidence as to why.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-05-10 02:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.

So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New Zealand call?

Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid point, summed up:

He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.

In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.

The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very serious stick about.

So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
Tony
2020-05-10 03:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those
who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.
If that is the case and I agree that it is, what on earth is Peter's really
trying to achieve?
Post by James Christophers
So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and
what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New
Zealand call?
Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid
He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.
In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its
clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.
The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable
housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables
incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very
serious stick about.
So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
James Christophers
2020-05-10 05:06:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those
who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.
If that is the case and I agree that it is, what on earth is Peter's really
trying to achieve?
To make it perfectly plain to New Zealanders that they must continue for ever and a day as citizens of their slave-state to its foreign owners for as long as **they** allow the now-parlous state of affairs to continue as is. (See my previous post as shown below).

I've already alluded to Oram who I would affirm has the problem mostly gripped even if a workable solution so far eludes him.

Forget Hartwich. In comparison to Oram he's no more than a plausible drive-by fashion accessory, tricked out and holed up in his vanity outfit at a vanity address in mid-town Wellington, with nothing but a fast line in robotic guru-speak to his name.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and
what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New
Zealand call?
Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid
He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.
In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its
clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.
The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable
housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables
incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very
serious stick about.
So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
Rich80105
2020-05-10 05:42:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 09 May 2020 22:24:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those
who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.
If that is the case and I agree that it is, what on earth is Peter's really
trying to achieve?
Since you started the thread by referring to a Rod Oram article but
not giving a reference to anything that Peters said other than what
was quoted in the Oram article, we can only assume that you were
referring to the statements in that article. Oram is I believe on
stronger grounds when talking about bringing manufacturing back to New
Zealand, but he is weaker on the overseas ownership issue - we have
been very poorly served by a number of companies that used to be New
Zealand owned but are now overseas owned - the banks in particular are
not seen as having been very helpful in relation to the pandemic
crisis - they are perceived as having done the minimum they had to -
usually by deferring profits rather than giving away much real value
(their reported profits will be hit by provisioning for bad loans
which will be carefully recovered over the next few years, but that is
window dressing.

So what is Peters doing? Setting his party up for the election of
course - and he knows that this time he will most easily take votes
from previously 'soft' National voters. So look for the jingoistic
slogans like "Make New Zealand Great Again"or even "New Zealand
First", together with support for "Buy New Zealand"and other
simplistic slogans. Unless Labour does a few "Epsom" deals National
could end up with overhang seats (more electorate seats than their
party vote would justify), but some regional seats may be at risk -
wily Winston knows that if he can get a few more percentage points in
each electorate for the party vote then NZ First should at least
retain its current number of seats. John Key being a bit more public
in his ANZ Role will not be helping National as much as they would
like, although I think he did a good job in distracting from at least
one major gaffe by Bridges. With the Transmission Gully PPP in
trouble, Winston may gain support by presenting the government as
stepping up with a "Ministry of Works"to provide some competition to
the big private players. Bridges failure with obscure legal arguments
about privilege, and his exclusion of Maori at his committee have ot
helped the appearance he gives of being self-absorbed, angry and
self-absorbed.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and
what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New
Zealand call?
Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid
He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.
In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its
clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.
The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable
housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables
incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very
serious stick about.
So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
As always, National has the answer - Tax Cuts!
Tony
2020-05-10 06:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 09 May 2020 22:24:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here
from
Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those
who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.
If that is the case and I agree that it is, what on earth is Peter's really
trying to achieve?
Since you started the thread by referring to a Rod Oram article but
not giving a reference to anything that Peters said other than what
was quoted in the Oram article, we can only assume that you were
referring to the statements in that article. Oram is I believe on
stronger grounds when talking about bringing manufacturing back to New
Zealand, but he is weaker on the overseas ownership issue - we have
been very poorly served by a number of companies that used to be New
Zealand owned but are now overseas owned - the banks in particular are
not seen as having been very helpful in relation to the pandemic
crisis - they are perceived as having done the minimum they had to -
usually by deferring profits rather than giving away much real value
(their reported profits will be hit by provisioning for bad loans
which will be carefully recovered over the next few years, but that is
window dressing.
So what is Peters doing? Setting his party up for the election of
course - and he knows that this time he will most easily take votes
from previously 'soft' National voters. So look for the jingoistic
slogans like "Make New Zealand Great Again"or even "New Zealand
First", together with support for "Buy New Zealand"and other
simplistic slogans. Unless Labour does a few "Epsom" deals National
could end up with overhang seats (more electorate seats than their
party vote would justify), but some regional seats may be at risk -
wily Winston knows that if he can get a few more percentage points in
each electorate for the party vote then NZ First should at least
retain its current number of seats. John Key being a bit more public
in his ANZ Role will not be helping National as much as they would
like, although I think he did a good job in distracting from at least
one major gaffe by Bridges. With the Transmission Gully PPP in
trouble, Winston may gain support by presenting the government as
stepping up with a "Ministry of Works"to provide some competition to
the big private players. Bridges failure with obscure legal arguments
about privilege, and his exclusion of Maori at his committee have ot
helped the appearance he gives of being self-absorbed, angry and
self-absorbed.
Of course I was referring to the Rod Oram article. What else would I be doing?
ANd he is spot on. All you have added is rhetoric. This has nothing to do with
National or their leader - I think you might actually be ill.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and
what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New
Zealand call?
Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid
He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.
In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its
clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.
The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable
housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables
incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very
serious stick about.
So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
As always, National has the answer - Tax Cuts!
Crash
2020-05-10 08:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 09 May 2020 22:24:25 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
When I read what Peters had said I could not accept his proposal, here from Rod
Oram is a far better argued and more intelligent opinion.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/10/1162132/more-global-cooperation-not-less
To refuse to be part of globalisation is foolhardy to say the least and
arguably idiotic.
Globalisation has become an irreversible reality that effectively allows those
who now hold the most strings to call the most shots.
If that is the case and I agree that it is, what on earth is Peter's really
trying to achieve?
Since you started the thread by referring to a Rod Oram article but
not giving a reference to anything that Peters said other than what
was quoted in the Oram article, we can only assume that you were
referring to the statements in that article. Oram is I believe on
stronger grounds when talking about bringing manufacturing back to New
Zealand, but he is weaker on the overseas ownership issue - we have
been very poorly served by a number of companies that used to be New
Zealand owned but are now overseas owned - the banks in particular are
not seen as having been very helpful in relation to the pandemic
crisis - they are perceived as having done the minimum they had to -
usually by deferring profits rather than giving away much real value
(their reported profits will be hit by provisioning for bad loans
which will be carefully recovered over the next few years, but that is
window dressing.
So what is Peters doing? Setting his party up for the election of
course - and he knows that this time he will most easily take votes
from previously 'soft' National voters. So look for the jingoistic
slogans like "Make New Zealand Great Again"or even "New Zealand
First", together with support for "Buy New Zealand"and other
simplistic slogans. Unless Labour does a few "Epsom" deals National
could end up with overhang seats (more electorate seats than their
party vote would justify), but some regional seats may be at risk -
wily Winston knows that if he can get a few more percentage points in
each electorate for the party vote then NZ First should at least
retain its current number of seats. John Key being a bit more public
in his ANZ Role will not be helping National as much as they would
like, although I think he did a good job in distracting from at least
one major gaffe by Bridges. With the Transmission Gully PPP in
trouble, Winston may gain support by presenting the government as
stepping up with a "Ministry of Works"to provide some competition to
the big private players. Bridges failure with obscure legal arguments
about privilege, and his exclusion of Maori at his committee have ot
helped the appearance he gives of being self-absorbed, angry and
self-absorbed.
The Oram article was entirely about Peters - what he proposes and
associated research. No mention of Bridges or National but you simply
cannot resist posting your off-topic anti National tirade again. You
get called on this repeatedly but still continue.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
So, in terms of global commerce, how many strings does New Zealand hold and
what, exactly, are they? Plus, what and how many shots, exactly, does New
Zealand call?
Oram has it right in essence, but in his own gravelly way Peters makes a valid
He who owns governs. He calls the shots. He sets the price.
In terms of commerce - our lifeblood - New Zealand is a price taker. Its
clients are its price setters. 100% No-win. Every time.
The rest you know: rising household debt, the world's most unaffordable
housing and WFF for middle-earners being but a few of its imponderables
incapable of redress and reform unless someone as yet unheralded puts some very
serious stick about.
So, is this all OK with you, dear reader? If so, why?
As always, National has the answer - Tax Cuts!
Yawn - again.


--
Crash McBash

Loading...