On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:47:27 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by James Christophers Post by Tony
Well worth reading.
Newman's is the thinnest of neoliberal gruel that only serves to emphasise the
closed-minded mentality of David Seymour and other passÃ© prima donna
demagogues of his mouthy ilk.
Criticising an article because you don't like the author is easy and absurd.
I doubt many would disagree with you on that, Tony, but the relevance
is a little obscure - you and James Christophers are the only previous
posters tot he thread, but there is no indication of whether either of
you like or dislike Muriel Newman; and certainly James Christophers
has not criticised her article on that basis, but on the merits or
otherwise of the article itself. You appear to be mis-representing
another poster; whether deliberately or for some other reason. Such
mis-representation is not equivalent to a valid argument, Tony.
Post by Tony
someone I respected once said "Criticise the behaviour not the man", he did not
claim authorship of tghat truism.
I note that you respect is given as being in the past tense; it is
unclear what you intended by that, but the truism is worth thinking
about; if irrelevant in the conext of the thread so far.
Post by Tony Post by James Christophers
Instead, do your self a favour and get your teeth into the following
fact-based article,. When you've absorbed it, try picking it apart, observable
fact by observable fact. You'll have your work cut out, and then some.
Why not, Tony? The article you posted appears to be a gripe about
the government measuring a few more things than just GDP, with
reference to vague terms like socialist (for example do you agree that
Agenda 2030 is the UN's blueprint for modern socialism? - no
explanation for that statment is given . . .). In saying "She said her
Government would no longer rely on traditional measures of progress
such as economic growth" I suspect Newman was misrepresenting what
the Prime Mnister did say - my understanding is that GDP continues to
mbe measured and used, but not as teh only indicator. The comment
about not being able to speak one's mind does not appear to be
supported; I am not aware of anyone trying to prevent the publicaton
of the article by Newman, for example. The example of housing is
quite bizarre - as most New Zealanders know the issue became urgent
during the term of the last National-led governments, but was
consistently denied by those geovernments as being a problem, but the
origin of the problem is widely seen as going back to the neo-liberal
'reforms" of the 1984 Labour and subsequent Governments. ACT (to which
I believe Newman has a connection), can justifiably feel proud of
having acknowledged the problem before the National Party, but to now
link that issue to the current government's use of more than one
economic indictor does appear a bit shallow and facile. The thinnest
of neo-liberal gruel dioes seem to be fairly accurate, but if you
disagree I suggest you find something of substance in the article.
Overall I find it hard to see any coherent argument in the Newman
article for our government to change direction, or any indication of
just what alternative policies Newman would see as preferable.
The article posted by James Christophers does at least attempt to
identify cause and effect of the type of policies which it appears the
"NZ Centre for Political Research"
By dismissing the relevance and content of that article as you appear
to have done by your blunt "No thanks" may indicate that you were not
even willing to read the article - if you want nz.general to be an
exchange of ideas and relevant articles, in a polite atmosphere of
appropriate respect for the views of others, then some level of
engagement from you would be desirable, Tony.