September 28, 2005 4:30pm by David Farrar

Greens and Business

The Greens made much noise about how they are reaching out to business. However it takes more than slogans and PR efforts. What were the results?

Well the quote of the day has to be from Paul Henry –

Share this:
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More
Pinterest
Print
Tumblr
Like this:
Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment51

Uncategorised

Comments (51)

Login to comment or vote

frog

Oh, David.

Right-wing business lobbyists don’t like the Greens. No shit!

Actually, what I said was that there was a spectrum of opinion amongst the attendees about the Greens, and that the vast majority of attendees were more balanced and less hysterical than Kerr, Barnett et al.

Roger Dickie of the Kyoto Forestry Association said there were “some positive signals from the Green Party at the party

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 6:28pm

frog

Oh, and I’m glad you arrived safely 🙂 Have fun on your travels…

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 6:31pm

Rockey Boy

It is a pity that the Greens get such a bad reception from some members of the business community as they are the only party looking forward 10 (or more) years and saying
these are the things (roading, global climate change, the end of cheap electricity/petrol etc) that we need to be thinking about and acting on now. Smart business will listen and is listening just not political pressure groups like the Chamnber of Commerce or Federated Farmers.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 7:05pm

Ed Snack

What a joke, froggy, you’ll have to try harder than that. The positive emails coming from an Organics business, what a jack up. Could we guess that the owner is a party member, or even a candidate ?

You can’t, however, expect reason or flexibility from the Greens, they are a classical religious party. Their beliefs aren’t subject to revision or review except by some form of divine pronouncement, a voice from the Mountain so to speak. You see, they are RIGHT, and, sir, whoever else you are, are quite simply wrong. And what is more if you can’t see you are wrong, you are, in Rod’s words, an extremist. Which is cute, coming from the only certified extremists in parliament.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 7:31pm

frog

Well, no, one of the emails was from a business commentator who spent most of the campaign arguing in favour of National’s tax cut package, and saying why it was good for business and for New Zealand generally. My guess is that he would be a National or Act voter. But, no, I cannot say who it was from, because we have to respect people’s request that their correspondence not be made public. However, as I mentioned, TV3’s Duncan Garner saw the emails, and said so on tonight’s news.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 7:36pm

Fav Falk

Business leaders(sic) terrified of Greens! What a boring, crock-o-shit dog-bites-man story. Everyone knows business leaders(sic) are “Terrified of Greens!!”. That’s why they farm out their hits to religious nutters. How in the world would they afford their second Hummer or “sightseeing” vacations to Bangkok if Greens were in government?

The real Man-Bites-Dog story would be to cover how many people are afraid of business people and their psychotic vision of endless year-over-year growth.

Corporations and corporate leaders are not well loved. They are routinely portrayed as the bad guys in lots of movies because, well, people know they are bad guys (and gals) — self-serving sell-you-out-for-a-percentage shits. Have a little Vioxx with your asbestos-tini there sir?

These “terrified business leader” articles write themselves; probably there’s a macro the journalists use– “CTRL-Alt G – Keyword FEAR’ or something, then — “Green…booogah boogah, gonna take your car away. Boogah boogah. Bicycle.”

Next time, I’d love to see an article in which corporate honchos honestly and openly brief Average Citizen(tm) on their plans for year-over-year growth in a world with finite resources, complete with tax and service cuts to fund increased profitability. I bet Average Citizen(tm) would walk out terrified. That’d be interesting to see. Oh wait, that was the election. Who won that? Hmmmm.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:03pm

Fav Falk

Business leaders(sic) terrified of Greens! What a boring, crock-o-shit dog-bites-man story. Everyone knows business leaders(sic) are “Terrified of Greens!!”. That’s why they farm out their hits to religious nutters. How in the world would they afford their second Hummer or “sightseeing” vacations to Bangkok if Greens were in government?

The real Man-Bites-Dog story would be to cover how many people are afraid of business people and their psychotic vision of endless year-over-year growth.

Corporations and corporate leaders are not well loved. They are routinely portrayed as the bad guys in lots of movies because, well, people know they are bad guys (and gals) — self-serving sell-you-out-for-a-percentage shits. Have a little Vioxx with your asbestos-tini there sir?

These “terrified business leader” articles write themselves; probably there’s a macro the journalists use– “CTRL-Alt G – Keyword FEAR’ or something, then — “Green…booogah boogah, gonna take your car away. Boogah boogah. Bicycle.”

Next time, I’d love to see an article in which corporate honchos honestly and openly brief Average Citizen(tm) on their plans for year-over-year growth in a world with finite resources, complete with tax and service cuts to fund increased profitability. I bet Average Citizen(tm) would walk out terrified. That’d be interesting to see. Oh wait, that was the election. Who won that? Hmmmm.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:04pm

Christiaan

Haha, Charles Finley says the Greens’ aren’t prepared to compromise?! I’d like to see those selfish fucks compromise their fat pay cheques for the planet. What a pack of selfish hypocrites. Don’t worry frog, David’s just pissed off he lost the election.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:20pm

Jackman

Look all parties have some good polices and some bad ones. The problem the problem that the greens face however is that despite having some good policies in theory they’re completely removed from where most New Zealanders stand eg their Law & Order, Drug, Anti Smacking and Roading Policies.

However instead of actually looking at ways to reach the a middle ground it seems that the Greens staunchly hold there ground to the point they either appear to have little tantrums because they can’t get their own way (eg the previous election, the GE debate and not wanting to go into government with Labour) or holding the majority of opinion to ransom.

In a general sense I admire the position of the Greens however think that instead of their All or Nothing approach that perhaps they should be looking at ways to create win:win solutions.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:26pm

BB

Tom – given url – wishes to stir the pot with this littul lot!

enjoy

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:31pm

BB

Tom – given url – wishes to stir the pot with this littul lot!

enjoy!

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:33pm

Christiaan

Jackman, that would just make them the new Labour party. This is not what Green Party exists for. Read their charter, that’s why it exists. The Green Party, like the Green movement, is not about following the popular opinion of the day, it is about getting the world to adopt a vision whereby we might actually survive and live happily ever after. The Green movement, and hence the Green Party, is based on decades of practice and thought, it does not change its fundamental vision and policy on the hoof like some other parties we all know.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 8:40pm

Shawn

“The Green Party, like the Green movement, is not about following the popular opinion of the day, it is about getting the world to adopt a vision whereby we might actually survive and live happily ever after”

How would making life easier for Islamic terrorists make the world a better place? The Greens have opposed every single move by the US, the UK, Australia and NZ to fight terrorists and improve national security, including refusing to define Jemaah Islamiya, the group responsible for the Bali bombing, as a terrorist group. What do they think JI is? A womens basket weaving group?

The problem with the Greens is that among some perfectly good policies there are too many extreme and left wing stupid ones.

If the Greens want to be taken seriously they need to drop their opposition to free trade and fire Kieth Locke.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 9:50pm

sock thief

If the Greens want to be more business friendly then they should change their anti-GE policy.

The big disappointment with the Greens and enviromenatlists in general is how far they have moved from science-based views. if they want to be taken seriously on issues such as energy and climate change then they should start by taking science seriously on all issues, not just when it suits them.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:06pm

Ed Snack

Wow, moonbat time ! One cannot expect flexibility from the Greens, they are not a party that arrives at policies or positions on rational grounds, they are a classically religious party. Doctrine is granted to them from on high, hence their language and behaviour. Rod’s righteousness, and look at this “intelligent” comment “Charles Finley says the Greens’ aren’t prepared to compromise?! I’d like to see those selfish fucks compromise their fat pay cheques for the planet. What a pack of selfish hypocrites. Don’t worry frog, David’s just pissed off he lost the election.”

And this “Next time, I’d love to see an article in which corporate honchos honestly and openly brief Average Citizen(tm) on their plans for year-over-year growth in a world with finite resources, complete with tax and service cuts to fund increased profitability. I bet Average Citizen(tm) would walk out terrified. That’d be interesting to see. Oh wait, that was the election. Who won that? Hmmmm” Coming from a party than won 5.07% from a solidly religious following, with no wider appeal, and a desire to show us all the error of our ways. From people who with rare exceptions live wholly on the backs, as parasites, on the productive sector in NZ.

Yeah, right, the way to save the planet is to impose on everyone what is the one true way to salvation.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:19pm

Matt

Sock Thief,

umm, funnily enough science is on the Greens side when it comes to GE. It is only the big biotech industries that continue to peddle their junk science that GE will not cause ireversible damage to crops.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:19pm

Clint

Frog,

I doubt any business would be against ACTs plans to cut corporate tax. Hell, they slashed it in Ireland and you didn’t see businesses being shy about pouring cash into that country did we?

Cheers

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:21pm

Matt

So let me get thie straight. The public should pay more in taxes, and corporations get the benefits. who wins… not the public, but the shareholders.

Now that is a pure false economy.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:33pm

Matt

So let me get this straight. The public should pay more in taxes, and corporations get the benefits. who wins… not the public, but the shareholders.

Now that is a pure false economy.

0 0
Report
September 28, 2005 10:34pm

woppo

Let the Nervous Nellies from the business community donate their livers to needy members of the Saudi royal family.
It’ll do wonders for our international standing.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 12:08am

andrewfalloon

Frog said-
“Roger Dickie of the Kyoto Forestry Association said there were “some positive signals from the Green Party at the party

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 1:29am

Kiwi Nuke

Where to start guys- so many exagerrations and misrepresentations… is this thread an example of the standard level of comprehension and debate on this blog? Disappointing.

Jackman: I respectfully suggest that the Greens GE position at the last election was not a tantrum but a deeply held philosphical position and what has been happily accepted this time from other parties as a ‘bottom line’. Whaasup guys, only Peter Dunne allowed those? At least the Greens only had one – at last count Pete had four (compare that to his voting power in the House).

And if you can remember back to the last election, far from holding the majority of opinion to ransom the Greens were the only party representing the majority opinion on this issue (67% opposed to release of GE into food and environment at last survey before 2002 election).

Ed: Your comment “You can’t, however, expect reason or flexibility from the Greens,” suggests to me as much, if not more, about your own rationality, comprehension of the issues and intellectual rigour and flexibility as it does about your target.

Shawn: Your call for the Greens to drop their opposition to so-called “Free” trade is on a par with Jackman’s suggestion that the Greens not hold to their principles but move to the middle-ground. Isn’t that territory crowded enough with unprincipled vote-scroungers? There are excellent, fully validated economuc arguments for opposing the current fixation with FTAs at all costs. Perhaps you make the mistake that many on the right appear to in assuming that the Green Party is against trade because we oppose some FTAs? Wrong. We oppose FTAs where the playing field is not level for our own producers and manufacturers as a result of exploitation by the proposed trading partner of its own environment and labour force. Do you really think we should attempt to compete without trade protection against sweatshop imports and illegally logged old-growth forest? Let’s all join the race to the bottom of the heap in terms of effective environmental protection and labour market regulation. Your disparagement of Green policy doesn’t have anything like the strength you think it does. And if Roger Kerr’s your best authority on the joys and benefits of free trade in an ineffectively protected and monitored international market than you’re in trouble. His understanding of current economic thinking is almost fair up to about 1987 and pretty rusty since i.e. he’s more retarded in his comprehension of economics than those he so blithely criticises.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 1:34am

Pete

Christian your comments:
“The Green Party, like the Green movement, is not about following the popular opinion of the day, it is about getting the world to adopt a vision whereby we might actually survive and live happily ever after.”

Amuse me. If you would like to explain how taking away parents rights to raise their children as they see fit falls into this category, taking a light approach on crime and punishment with programs that are already failing eg diversion and family group conferences I would be interested.

I am quite willing to admit that I voted Green in the previous election because I agreed with their position on GE and felt the other parties were all as bad as each other.

However when the time came, instead of the Greens forcing the issue with Labour they quite happily bent over and then let the rest of us get screwed over by continuing to provide confidence and support.

To me the Greens are really no better than any other party despite the propaganda they would like us to believe. That is they want power at any cost and will sell of their own souls if it means that they may get it.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 7:09am

spam

Fav Falk wrote: “Business leaders(sic) terrified of Greens! What a boring, crock-o-shit dog-bites-man story. Everyone knows business leaders(sic) are “Terrified of Greens!!”. That’s why they farm out their hits to religious nutters. How in the world would they afford their second Hummer or “sightseeing” vacations to Bangkok if Greens were in government?”

Sorry for the threadjack, but what is it with these lefties who assume that anyone who wants a tax-cut or wants to make a profit is going to be spending it on baches, yachts, hummers & travel?

Personally, I just wanted a tax cut to try and pay of my mortgage a little faster….

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 8:13am

Tane W

Ed,

“One cannot expect flexibility from the Greens, they are not a party that arrives at policies or positions on rational grounds, they are a classically religious party. Doctrine is granted to them from on high, hence their language and behaviour.”

I love it when right wingers claim that the Greens are a religous party, it’s beautifully ironic. Of the Greens and ACT, which party believes in an invisible force that will bring prosperity, profits, balance and happiness to the nation? Which party believes that this invisible force is all knowing and all powerful? The idea is that we abandon all attempts to control or regulate our economy and voila, this invisible force will magically put a car in every garage and a plasma screen in every lounge. Yep, that’s right, I’m talking about the market, and those who advocate free marketing are the true religous zealots, comparable to medieval clergy in their blind faith in an invisibile, unknowable power that will make it all better…….

And like medieval monks debating how many angels dance on the head of a pin, we have economists quantifying consumer confidence, business growth, blah, blah, blah ad naueseum. Strangely enough, they’re always positive in their outlooks too (read John Kenneth Gilbraith to figure out why, he should know he was a Harvard professor of economics).

I know that the Greens are soft on a number of policy issues. But if anyone out there in the political spectrum deserves the title of religious moonbats, I believe that honour belongs on the right.

I look forward to your reply.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 9:05am

James

But unlike Ghia and God the market actually exists Tane.The Free market does not require blind faith from its supporters,its there for all to see and its a shining triumph of Humanity at its best.It is the un-coerced interaction of human beings acting in their own self interest to better their lives which has the consequence of enriching those they trade with as well.Its a win-win for everyone concerned.The Free market,where its been allowed to opperate without being swamped in some State regulation(virtually no where)has enriched ALL people from the richest to the poorest.The poorest people in Free market countries are amoungst the richest 8% of people on the planet!Third world people living in real poverty wish they could be as poor as the “poorest” people here,ie those “poor” people with cars,Sky tv,so much food they are overweight,running water,healthcare,refidgeration…etc.:-)It is the Left that has no option but to bury their heads in the faith of Global warming,Social justice and other nonsense.Facing the truth of the world is just too much for the poor dears it seems…

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 9:52am

James

And its always amusing to see anti Free marketeers use the very market tools ie; PC’s designed,built and sold by private sector people for profit,the Internet which evolves spontaneously by the actions of millons of people adding to it without a central planner,and free speech etc to attack the market or the very idea it even exists! Its like those anti globalisation idiots who proudly carried signs saying “Join the world wide fight against Globalisation!”…:-)

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:12am

frog

David: Would be *very* interested in your thoughts on this: http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2005/09/29/a-spectrum-mark-two/

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:14am

Christiaan

Pete, you may be right, the Greens might be just like any other party and sell their own souls if it means that they may get power, however, so far as I can tell, they’re the only party that have demonstrated to me any kind of resistance to this fundamental flaw in our limited democratic system. I don’t envy the Green MPs and I don’t have any evidence to suggest that you could do a better job at doing what they’re trying to do. It’s a road I could maybe have taken myself but chose not to at an early stage (reasons for which are probably clear on my blog). As for your problem with the Greens’ problem with Section 59 of the Crimes Act, as I see it you want to know how “taking away parents rights to raise their children as they see fit falls into [the] category” of “the Green movement is about getting the world to adopt a vision whereby we might actually survive and live happily ever after.”

Apart from “Non-Violence” being one of four founding tenets of its charter (the one item I have to admit to having a few problems with), I don’t think this is an issue of “taking away a parents rights to raise their children as they see fit.” I see it as fundamental obligation of society to protect the vulnerable, otherwise there is no “happily living ever after” for all kinds direct and indirect reasons. I couldn’t give a fuck if you’re a parent, if you beat your child, any child, badly there should be no uncertain consequences.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:38am

Tane W

James,

You make some good points. I’d reply back to you that personally I believe capitalism for all it’s warts, is the best economic system we have available. More on that in a second.

My point is that those on the right are quick to portray my fellow Greens and I as a bunch of out-of-touch religous kooks, while ignoring the fundamental underpinning of their own views, which is a blind faith in the market. You say the market exists, I agree. But where we diverge is a that I fail to see how an unregulated and uncontrolled market can possibly deliver benefits to everyone. For starters there can never be a totally free market. We will need contract laws to bind agreements, we need weights and measures laws (amongst the oldest legislation, dating back to the Greeks), we need laws controlling dangerous goods. All of these are essential to good business, but they also impede the free market; they control my freedoms to sell what I like to who I like in any way I like, and whether I can walk away from a deal or not.

So the arguement is, if there cannot be a totally free market, where do we draw the line. That’s the true guts of this debate.

I don’t see how a free market can help anyone other than the already rich and powerful. They have the means to establish monopolies, raise prices, cut off supply and generally screw everyone around. Late 19th century America is a classic case of this, with the robber barons jumping on consumers and small businesses alike. Can you really argue that you or I have the resources and ability to defeat a Carter Holt Harvey or a Telecom?

I like capitalism, but I hate and fear corporatism. They are two different creatures, but corporatists hide in plain view by assuming the title of capitalists. The capitalism I want to see is of the small and medium variety, with huge businesses controlled, and if necessary broken up if they assume too much power (see Standard Oil as an example). This will hinder their ability to operate on a global stage, but given that cheap oil is on the out, and that globalisation is about to die a nasty death, I don’t think this will be a problem.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:49am

gd

Me sees the Green Eyed Monster (pun intended) Anti success pro failure pro lowest common denominator Tax the Rich bastards A common thread among the failures of the Left.Its business that produces the stuff you buy and use you bunch of anal retentives.Rocks for brains all of you Go crawl back under your rock and let the big people sort it out

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:52am

Kimble

“I fail to see how an unregulated and uncontrolled market can possibly deliver benefits to everyone”

Can you at least see how an OVER-controlled and OVER-regulated market can fail to deliver benefits?

“there cannot be a totally free market,”, here is the crux of the left misunderstanding of a free-marketeers point of view. In just the same way that the left consider Libertarians equivalent to Anarchists, they consider free-marketeers the equivalent to the same. The term might be “free-market” but I dont think that very many, if any, people who claim to be free-marketeers would throw out contract law or the protection of private property enshrined in law.

“I hate and fear corporatism.” Nice to see youre being rational.

“and that globalisation is about to die a nasty death,” Is it now? Whys that? (Globalisation is a natural process, by the way, not something artificially crafted.) Are ou predicting a massive resurgence of protectionism?

“They have the means to establish monopolies” -Monopolies can either be natural (where the good or service can only be supplied by ONE producer) and what I like to call “gifted”. A Gifted Monopoly occurs when the GOVERNMENT decrees that there shall be only ONE producer and then decides to either be that producer or pick that producer. The they might create barriers to entry into the market for other producers. Natural barriers, exist to be sure, but they are natural and by implication unavoidable.

“raise prices” – So no-one should be allowed to increase the price of something? You lied, you really dont like capitalism at all, do you?

“cut off supply” – Yeah, okay. If an individual company reduces supply, given enough competition, the slack will be provided by another company. Unless what you are refering to is an oligopoly where the participants are colluding to fix the supply and price. Because there are laws for that already, but where a lot of people see collusion there is really only a well oiled market mechanism where supply and demand are efficiently communicated and where a price is arrived at very quickly.

“and generally screw everyone around” – Of course it isnt like there arent government to do that already is there.

You hate and fear corporations? Sounds as if you fell wary of giving the people who run corporations too much power over your life. But your solution is the give government MORE power than that so that they can control the corporations.

Have you ever stopped to think what the world would be like if ALL businesses were capped at a cretain size? What we would call a medium to large business today (in contrast to a Giant- or Mega- Giga- Microsoft or GE) would have been considered too large not too long ago? No mass production of microchips. By your system, someone would have to foresee the value of the mass production of the microchip before allowing mass production of the microchip. This isnt a problem in itself, the exact same thing happens in business. The problem with your way is that the person who is deciding whether the production is worthwhile has nothing to personally gain by saying yay and nothing to personally lose by saying nay. And governments are notoriously poor at “picking winners”.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 11:34am

bjchip

David and all the rest of you…

Greens aren’t a “unified” or “religious” party in most of the non-environmental aspects of policy.

Can’t be – because I am a Green too.

There are a LOT of people who put the planet first but respect the business end of the arguments at the same time, and while you are all going off on bizarre caricatures of Green thought, you are not considering that Greens are evolving and are not all the same. I do not know where this is going to lead, but you do nobody any favours by remaining willfully ignorant of our positions and our diversity.

The commons is now the planet itself. It cannot be replaced and it must be protected. The best way to do that is to ensure that EVERYONE pays for that portion of the commons that they use or abuse and that the price paid reflects the real value of the commons to the human species. That is what Kyoto is about. That is what Greens are REALLY about and I have no doubt that some strong efforts are going to be made to make that clear over the next few years.

I suspect that the bulk of MY efforts will be directed at other Greens 🙂

It would be wisdom for Nats to consider the parts of Green thought that are core environmental issues realistically. Peak Oil is coming, Warming is coming… and accepting THOSE things would tend to pull OUR issues… and some of us might be tempted to switch over.

Except that as long as you guys cozy up to Dubya and the EB church you’ll never be able to sway me.

I’ve heard their lies before.

respectfully
BJ

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 11:39am

anon

“Apart from “Non-Violence” being one of four founding tenets of its charter (the one item I have to admit to having a few problems with), I don’t think this is an issue of “taking away a parents rights to raise their children as they see fit.” I see it as fundamental obligation of society to protect the vulnerable, otherwise there is no “happily living ever after” for all kinds direct and indirect reasons. I couldn’t give a fuck if you’re a parent, if you beat your child, any child, badly there should be no uncertain consequences.”

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but it is already illegal to badly beat any child. It is, infact punishable buy time in jail.

The greens non violence tennant will only serve to make criminals out the vast majority of parents who smack their children, clogging up the court system, it will do nothing to stop the sort of low lifes who punch, burn with cigarettes, hit kids with lumps of wood.
The black and white lumping of any parents who smack their children with people who thrash the shit out of their children is exactly the sort of thing that turns most people off the greens – either you agree with the green philosophy or you are a sadistic beater of children. The greens failure to recognise the difference and “you’re either with us or against us” attitude will keep them on the margins forever.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 12:10pm

Kimble

You were going okay till this….”Peak Oil is coming”

Then made a complete ass of yourself with this…”cozy up to Dubya and the EB church”

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 2:06pm

Joel

“The Free market does not require blind faith from its supporters,its there for all to see and its a shining triumph of Humanity at its best.”

Headline: voters aren’t scared of ACT, they’re terrified.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 4:44pm

RootBear

Regarding: “The answer is the Free Market. What was the question?”

Someone please tell me how the Free Market solves problems such as the depletion of fisheries.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 5:09pm

Tane W

Kimble,

Thanks for the reply.

“Can you at least see how an OVER-controlled and OVER-regulated market can fail to deliver benefits?”

Yes I can, I grew up in 1980s NZ same as you. I want a balance between unbridled capitalism and communism. Why is that such a bad thing? We regulate every aspect of our lives, I don’t see any problem with some control over business.

Of course I realise you can’t have a totally free market, nor was I implying that you think so. I think my point is still valid, if we have to have some basic level of regulation, then the issue is not ‘no laws to control business ever’. The issue is how much is too much, how much is too little. Like I said, it’s about balance.

“I hate and fear corporatism.” Nice to see youre being rational.”

Well I can’t be cool, calm and collected all the time eh?! I worry that left unchecked corporates can and will do anything to increase their profit margin. The nature of corporations removes the repercussions of decisions from the decision maker, while offering them incentives to fuck people and the environment. This is not always the case, but it happens often enough to scare the crap out of me. Two examples, asbestos Hardiplank in Australia and the infamous Ford Pinto.

As for globalisation, I agree it’s not a new phenomona. It’s been around since ancient times, and by the 16th century, the Spaniards had a trade route circling the globe. But globalisation as we understand it is about to collapse, as the end of cheap oil makes the rapid and easy transport of bulk goods uneconomical. It will also reduce the food supply available to the human race, and the resulting social stresses (a calm way of putting it) will reduce demand for widgets made on the other side of the globe. Hard to believe when you look out the window and see a thousand cars, planes flying, ships pulling in, but that’s what I see on the horizon.

“raise prices” – So no-one should be allowed to increase the price of something? You lied, you really dont like capitalism at all, do you?” You got me on semantics. Of course businesses can raise prices. But not in a monopoly situation. I take it you’re not advocating the Enron model of capitalism, complete with imposed supply cuts of essential goods?

“cut off supply” – Yeah, okay. If an individual company reduces supply, given enough competition, the slack will be provided by another company. ”
That might work for soft drinks and chips, but I doubt that essential services can so easily be duplicated. For instance, many free marketeers want to privatise water. Once the pipes and resevoirs in Auckland are sold, can you honestly tell me a competitor can and will move in to establish a rival infrastructure……?

“But your solution is the give government MORE power than that so that they can control the corporations.”
Well fortunately for me, given I believe in the impending oil crash and the severe localisation that’s about to happen, every large organisation, be it a corporate or central government, is going to have to devolve power to the local level. Running huge centralised bureacracies (both public and private) will be very difficult in a time of mounting energy shortages. So no, I don’t see us going back to being the East Germany of the South Pacific (and I’m happy about that too believe it or not).

“Have you ever stopped to think what the world would be like if ALL businesses were capped at a cretain size? ”
You’ve got me there, I admit I have no idea. This is still an idea I’m working through, I don’t pretend to have any answers. I thought I’d raise it here to get differing viewpoints and test the basic concept. You couldn’t legislate something like that, not directly. But the laws on corporations our ancestors had might be worth looking at. Removing the ‘natural person’ rights from corporates for starters. Making executives and managers responsible for criminal actions will be a lot easier then. Removing the charters of companies consistently breaking the law.

You see too much power resting with our government. I see our government as dancing to the steps of an even more powerful grouping, the corporates. I’d rather have government in control, because at least I can vote or lobby the bastards out. I doubt I will be so successful with a group of corporations.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 5:37pm

Tane W

GD,

“Its business that produces the stuff you buy and use you bunch of anal retentives.Rocks for brains all of you Go crawl back under your rock and let the big people sort it out”

Well I’m not crawling under any rock, because I’d fully expect to find you there first, indulging in what can only be described as a very personal hobby.

No, this anal retentive will spend his time talking to the big people (current company excepted), so I can test my ideas, amend the bad ones and convince other grown-ups of the good ones. I’ll make full use of the stuff business makes for my use, and good on them when they profit from it, as long as it’s not screwing our environment and my health.

Finally, on the subject of ‘rocks for brains’, you need to check out your grammar. No, not the parents of your parents, I mean the way you construct your sentences. I understand that adult education is remarkably easy to enrol in these days.

Cheers.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 5:48pm

Kimble

Well Rootbeer, as I have already said “free-market” ideals are not anarchic ideals. Free market is a relative not an absolute term. Clear and defendable property rights are absolutely necessary in market.

The problem with depletion of fisheries is that noone OWNS the oceans. The oceans belong to noone and that means it belongs to everyone. There is no personal incentive for sustainable fishing because even if you dont take as much as you can you cant trust others not to do the same. If the stock was OWNED by someone, it would be more likely protected from being exploited to depletion.

It is the same concept as an animal that is endangered in the wild but thrives when farmed. In the wild it belongs to noone, it is in noones interest to protect it, it will die from poaching or habitat destruction. When it is on a farm, its owner has an interest in its survival, it will live and thrive. (If Panda bears grew quickly and tasted like Gods own sirloin, they would be farmed just like cows and wouldnt be going extinct.)

This is actually a situation where an oligopoly or a monopoly would work best. If one organisation owned all the fish stocks in the world then it is in their interests to protect their future income. The natural barrier or obstruction to clear and defendable property rights is the inability to deliniate sections of ocean and the fish stocks within. (The size of the oceans and the migratory nature of many fish species etc). A natural monopoly is the most efficient structure.

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 5:59pm

Joel

You’re not for real, are you?

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 6:11pm

Paul W

Kimble: you’re comment about Pandas while amusing is hardly illustrative.

The fisheries question was a good one – but surely you understand that fisheries are managed and ocean zones are protected; NZ’s is the fourth or fifth largest coastal management zone in the world.

Rootbear’s comment was a perfectly reasonable one and one for which the answer is sensible government regulation of the market.

I might be misreading you, although you are typically emphatic, but I think you are entirely wrong in your argument because you start from the false premise that there are no ocean proprietory rights when in fact there are (and NZ is an acknowledged world leader in fisheries management by the way).

Incidentally, orange roughy was almost wiped out due to over fishing 20 or so years ago and it was government that intervened to solve the problem. Likewise, over fishing of cod in the Europe is being addressed by government… government protecting assets and future revenues, what the hey – maybe they’re not so crazy?

Perhaps you need to repeat NCEA 1, I know that the Seafood Industry Training Organisation has excellent resources…

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 6:31pm

Kimble

Joel and Paul,

I have to admit, I was taking the piss a bit about the fisheries, and the perfect structure being a worldwide monopoly.

I dont really have a problem with fishing quotas, because I think that each nation DOES own its territorial waters and that it is entirely reasonable for the body which represents the citizens of that nation act as the overseer of the resource.

Tane,

Fair point on the higher oil prices increasing the cost of transport. But I dont think that the increase in oil price will be sustained indefinitely, and even if it is, the margin on exported goods is high enough that a permanent increase in the price will have little effect on long term trade. Also, globalisation is not just about physical trade, it is increasingly about the mobility of labour, both people and jobs, and investment. [Sorry to cherry pick the issue but discussions like this do have a tendancy to balloon to the point of irrelevance.]

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 7:28pm

B.J. Melville

New Zealand ‘owns’ vast tracts of ocean and seems to be capable of stopping the Americans from fishing for Russian and Chinese subs ;-).

0 0
Report
September 29, 2005 10:23pm

Stephen Glaister

I’m wary of Greens on trade to say the least…. the third world’s low wages and their lax environmental standards *are* their comparative advantage… Green policies forbidding us to trade with them would doom them and impoverish us – it’s the classic lose-lose that trade barriers create…..

That said… I do tend to think there might be more rooom for common cause between even the hardest core right-wing and the Greens than has been allowed here. It’s a recognizable right-wingy goal, after all, to try to defund the oil-based dictatorships of the middle east (I hated it when I had to drive 500 miles a week for my job that I felt like a 1 person sponsor of the house of Saud!) by increasing energy efficiency and boosting renewable energy suppplies. And can’t righty objections to the RMA make common cause with Green desires to see more renewable energy power stations built.

And so on….

“Real politik” is just the glass half-empty version of “fruitful compromise”. I’m sure of it. 🙂

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 12:07am

beedee

I always thought that corporate business types were after money and power to compensate for their emotional and personal deficiencies.
It seems strange that a group of people who put human values first can scare these big buck boys so much.
What are they scared of – that the majority will finally wise up and rise up ?

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 1:02pm

beedee

I always thought that corporate business types were after money and power to compensate for their emotional and personal deficiencies.
It seems strange that a group of people who put human values first can scare these big buck boys so much.
What are they scared of – that the majority will finally wise up and rise up ?

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 1:04pm

RootBear

Regarding Kimble’s “A natural monopoly is the most efficient structure.”

Would such a “natural monopoly” be an example of the free market at work?

How would such a “natural monopoly” come to own the Oceans?

As an actor in the free market, wouldn’t such a “natural monopoly” have a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit? How would that square with the goals of avoiding the depletion of fisheries?

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 1:40pm

Kimble

“rise up” – Communist or Anarchist, beedee?

Rootbeer, natural monopolies can exist in free markets, but this doesnt mean that all monopolies are due to free market mechanisms. On the contrary, many monopolies simply come from government interference either by being the sole provider themselves or by way of licences and selective quotas.

How could such a monopoly come about? I dont think it could. I admitted before that the monopoly discussion was really tongue in cheek (trying to rattle a few anti-capitalist cages).

“a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit?” This is a question much easier to answer. If we simply assume the monopoly has come into existence, then the motive for over-fishing disappears. Because any over-fishing this year will impact the catch and subsequent revenue next year.

Another way of looking at it is by recognising that as well as profit shareholders also look for share price appreciation. The valuation of a company today is the sum of its discounted future earnings. Basicly, you will only pay for a stock as much as you think it will make in the future.

This means that those running the business have as much incentive (if not more) to ensure ongoing profit even at the cost of immediate profit.

This is one of the reasons why I like business models rather than governmental models. It all comes down to incentives. Regardless of what they say, or even what they believe, politicians are only as accountable as the next election. They have an incentive to forego long-term national gains in return for short-term party gains. A perfect example of this is Labours interest free student loans proposal. Announced just before the election, even the least cynical of us has to admit that it was done in order to gain votes. That the issue would not have even arisen had Labour not desired a bump in the polls.

A business, however, when appropriate incentives are in place for executives, HAS to think long term, because long term profitability means more than short term.

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 5:09pm

B.J. Melville

Isn’t the current system a bit like a monopoly, with the Crown owning all the fish?

0 0
Report
September 30, 2005 10:46pm

Ben Wilson

It’s comical that these capitalism vs well-something-else debates always start off with accusations of extremism on both sides, followed by reconciliations which find common ground, and then finally acknowledge that each side shares the others aims but differs on the means, and really aren’t that far apart in policy.

This is perfectly true and rational. The Nats aren’t the Nazis and the Greens aren’t the Bolsheviks. They’re both byproducts of middle class NZ. Their differences of opinion are nowhere near as extreme as these political theories would dictate.

For example, across the entire range of drug policy, the Green party differs from the more custardy parties only in that it advocates the decriminalization of dope. Oooolala. Given that the range of opinions on drugs could be from total prohibition of all intoxicants and stimulants including alchohol and tobacco, perhaps with death penalties for possession or public use, all the way to a complete legalization of all drugs with no consequences for production, possession or consumption. Our huge gap between parties is over the minor technicality of whether the police will continue following the policy of ignoring dope users unless they really flaunt it or if they should be forced to have that policy be made into law. Big wow. People are still going to grow and smoke dope either way, probably in the same proportions as now.

This thread’s debate has not been about whether we should have an actual free market (which everyone knows would be stepping back a few millenia for the species), or a communist total command economy.

It’s been about a few percentages of our income tax, some differences on import/export laws, and to what extent public goods should be paid for by the users.

In other words we’re all market socialists with minor leanings in divergent directions. Perhaps some have ambitions to lean a lot further, but such people are always considered ‘extremists’.

This all not to say that we should not have these discussions, but rather that the simplistic metaphors which always go back to hypothetical markets or excrutiating discussions of irrelevant ancient history go nowhere. We can’t work this stuff out by theory, I’m sorry.

The questions of economics are not those of a pure science. The only way is to experiment. Those on the slightly to the right of centre, that is the Labour of the 80s and the Nats of the 90s, had their 20 years to prove that cutting tax and services will create prosperity for NZ. It was ultimately a mixed bag. Some aspects of life improved for NZ, others got worse. Even the right will not try to say that increased unemployment and depressed wages is a good statistic. But more total wealth is a good thing, as is cheaper goods.

Now we’re trying another experiment. It seems to be working, with mixed results. The economy is strong against world trends. Most of the key indicators like unemployment and poverty are better. Hence Labour looks like getting the reins again. The only real concern is the rate of social change which alarms poor conservative kiwis.

Which all means that business will have to get used to the Green party, unless they want really unstable government, which, as they always say, is bad for business.

It’s an amusing concept, I know. I have in the past found the Greens too Ludditish to support them. But I think the kick in the pants they got from Labour over GE has tempered their radical souls.

Ultimately there is nothing illogical about the Green party trying to build bridges to business groups. They probably want to appeal more widely, to perhaps find a middle ground where business becomes more environmentally responsible and the Greens become less Ludditish. Management of waste is not a minor issue to be swept under the carpet.

I would watch the space closely. Business can’t afford to ignore government just because it doesn’t do what they wish. Wise corporate leaders will engage in this dialogue.

0 0
Report
October 3, 2005 10:48pm