Sunday, July 03, 2005
Closing the Gaps
Stephen Thomas Cooper had this to say on his blog yesterday:
A blogger would be ashamed...
John Armstrong's piece today in the Herald was disconcerting in its raw ineptitude. It was so poor that even a casual read after you've just woken up produced the "what on earth are you talking about?" effect.
Take this gem:
"It is why Clark dumped "Closing the Gaps" with barely a second thought".
It is great to see that our media have taken to reading minds. Not. This is wrong on quite a few fronts.
The whole article is full of these little statements, that assert a commonly held belief, but as expert political anylisis really don't cut it.
The Herald was never going to do Labour any favours, and probably few people read Armstrong's piece anyway, but it is just really irksome that every article he has written in the last year has talked glowingly of Brash and doggedly ridiculed Clark and Cullen.
Then came these comments (inter alia)
Gooner said...
They did drop it because they realised their socialist policies couldn't close them as the latest OECD report confirmed: the gap actually got wider in the last three years.
Oliver said...
Calling Labour socialist is akin to calling National christian conservative: it just isn't the case.
Stephen Thomas Cooper said...
Gooner - yes, Labour is SOOOO socialist that rich people have made more progress under a Labour Government than under a National one. Sorry if everyone getting ahead is a problem for you; part of the problem with closing the gaps is that we have had an economic boom and that kind of negated the impact - the same with Maharey's MoSD initiatives such as the jobs jolt; it was superceded by the best employment rate in twenty years...
I added a comment after this.
Here is my take on CTG.
There are only three ways to get wealthy. You can create it (Eric Watson, John Banks etc); you can inherit it (the Royal Family); or you can win it (Lotto). I've never heard of anyone becoming wealthy by having it redistributed to them by a government.
When CTG was implemented, Labour really extolled its virtues. It was going to cost $400 million (approximately) and was going to bridge the gap between the poor and rich.
Yet when the latect OECD report came out, it said the gaps have got wider! CTG hadn't worked. Sure, poverty *might* have been partially alleviated, depending on how you measure it, but the 'poor' were still getting poorer comparatively. Was this foreseeable?
"Steve Maharey promises not to allow government programmes to be captured by the privileged amongst Maori hierarchies. Such assurances are implausible when the Maori societal model being propped up simply is not democratic. It's incongruous for a democratic society to invent legislative machinery to protect enclaves within which individual property and human rights are denied.
In conclusion, Mr Maharey's government has some serious reconsideration to do. Improving the lot of the poor while opening the gaps is a possibility his government denies - and currently markets are punishing New Zealand for that phobia."
Gareth Morgan said this five years ago (link). He's a smart man.
Smarter than Smarmy Maharey from Helen Clark's dairy.
It is incredulous that Stephen Cooper blames strong economic growth for failing to close the gaps. Read his reply to me again:
'part of the problem with closing the gaps is that we have had an economic boom and that kind of negated the impact'
He also blames the tight labour market on Maharey's failed jobs policies.
'the same with Maharey's MoSD initiatives such as the jobs jolt; it was superceded by the best employment rate in twenty years...'
In other words, Stephen is saying the government can't beat the market.
Exactly Stephen. Governments don't create wealth. Governments don't create jobs. A free society does.
When will Labour understand this?
A blogger would be ashamed...
John Armstrong's piece today in the Herald was disconcerting in its raw ineptitude. It was so poor that even a casual read after you've just woken up produced the "what on earth are you talking about?" effect.
Take this gem:
"It is why Clark dumped "Closing the Gaps" with barely a second thought".
It is great to see that our media have taken to reading minds. Not. This is wrong on quite a few fronts.
The whole article is full of these little statements, that assert a commonly held belief, but as expert political anylisis really don't cut it.
The Herald was never going to do Labour any favours, and probably few people read Armstrong's piece anyway, but it is just really irksome that every article he has written in the last year has talked glowingly of Brash and doggedly ridiculed Clark and Cullen.
Then came these comments (inter alia)
Gooner said...
They did drop it because they realised their socialist policies couldn't close them as the latest OECD report confirmed: the gap actually got wider in the last three years.
Oliver said...
Calling Labour socialist is akin to calling National christian conservative: it just isn't the case.
Stephen Thomas Cooper said...
Gooner - yes, Labour is SOOOO socialist that rich people have made more progress under a Labour Government than under a National one. Sorry if everyone getting ahead is a problem for you; part of the problem with closing the gaps is that we have had an economic boom and that kind of negated the impact - the same with Maharey's MoSD initiatives such as the jobs jolt; it was superceded by the best employment rate in twenty years...
I added a comment after this.
Here is my take on CTG.
There are only three ways to get wealthy. You can create it (Eric Watson, John Banks etc); you can inherit it (the Royal Family); or you can win it (Lotto). I've never heard of anyone becoming wealthy by having it redistributed to them by a government.
When CTG was implemented, Labour really extolled its virtues. It was going to cost $400 million (approximately) and was going to bridge the gap between the poor and rich.
Yet when the latect OECD report came out, it said the gaps have got wider! CTG hadn't worked. Sure, poverty *might* have been partially alleviated, depending on how you measure it, but the 'poor' were still getting poorer comparatively. Was this foreseeable?
"Steve Maharey promises not to allow government programmes to be captured by the privileged amongst Maori hierarchies. Such assurances are implausible when the Maori societal model being propped up simply is not democratic. It's incongruous for a democratic society to invent legislative machinery to protect enclaves within which individual property and human rights are denied.
In conclusion, Mr Maharey's government has some serious reconsideration to do. Improving the lot of the poor while opening the gaps is a possibility his government denies - and currently markets are punishing New Zealand for that phobia."
Gareth Morgan said this five years ago (link). He's a smart man.
Smarter than Smarmy Maharey from Helen Clark's dairy.
It is incredulous that Stephen Cooper blames strong economic growth for failing to close the gaps. Read his reply to me again:
'part of the problem with closing the gaps is that we have had an economic boom and that kind of negated the impact'
He also blames the tight labour market on Maharey's failed jobs policies.
'the same with Maharey's MoSD initiatives such as the jobs jolt; it was superceded by the best employment rate in twenty years...'
In other words, Stephen is saying the government can't beat the market.
Exactly Stephen. Governments don't create wealth. Governments don't create jobs. A free society does.
When will Labour understand this?
Comments:
<< Home
The way I see it, the gap between the rich and the poor serves two functions; one, as a drainage ditch, and 2, as an incentive.
Let's work with the incentive first: If there is no gap between the rich and the poor, why would the poor bother working to become rich - and why would the rich bother working to avoid poverty. Unfortunately, it is assumed by the left that richness is god given, and regenerates even when you take it away.
The ditch concept is a little different, but it uses the concept of a bridge that i rather like: The great chasm that separates the rich and the poor serves less as an obstical than as a functionary tool. The economy is a swamp. hard working people emmerge, and build drainage ditches to hold out the water, and to protect their investment. without their work, the water would seep up, and resettle the bog back into flat swampland (envisage the holland, in the netherlands).
The people outside the drained land see it, and want it. but they do not want to work for it. thus, because they make life choices that exclude them from achieving "dry land", it is inequitable for others to make that enjoyment possible for only themselves. thus, we set about evening out the land: We ration that all that dry land could be used to raise the whole level of the bog, and these people calculate that the land should be redistributed according to need: ie: the deepest hole should be filled first.
etc... etc...
And so we have a swamp once more.
So what is the answer? make the drainage ditches bigger, not smaller, but build bridges over them, bridges called education. that way the people with dry land can teach the bogsters how to build more dry land - which is much better, as more dry land is the answer, not sharing the same amount of dry land between an ever growing population.
there, the gap between the rich and the poor is the best thing for society, especially if we invest in the means to move from one to the other. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
Let's work with the incentive first: If there is no gap between the rich and the poor, why would the poor bother working to become rich - and why would the rich bother working to avoid poverty. Unfortunately, it is assumed by the left that richness is god given, and regenerates even when you take it away.
The ditch concept is a little different, but it uses the concept of a bridge that i rather like: The great chasm that separates the rich and the poor serves less as an obstical than as a functionary tool. The economy is a swamp. hard working people emmerge, and build drainage ditches to hold out the water, and to protect their investment. without their work, the water would seep up, and resettle the bog back into flat swampland (envisage the holland, in the netherlands).
The people outside the drained land see it, and want it. but they do not want to work for it. thus, because they make life choices that exclude them from achieving "dry land", it is inequitable for others to make that enjoyment possible for only themselves. thus, we set about evening out the land: We ration that all that dry land could be used to raise the whole level of the bog, and these people calculate that the land should be redistributed according to need: ie: the deepest hole should be filled first.
etc... etc...
And so we have a swamp once more.
So what is the answer? make the drainage ditches bigger, not smaller, but build bridges over them, bridges called education. that way the people with dry land can teach the bogsters how to build more dry land - which is much better, as more dry land is the answer, not sharing the same amount of dry land between an ever growing population.
there, the gap between the rich and the poor is the best thing for society, especially if we invest in the means to move from one to the other. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime.
# posted by 
: 5:31 PM
: 5:31 PM 
When will a compassionate Govt close the gap between Bill Gates and Eric Watson...? Bill has way more money than Watson so therefore Watson must be in poverty...right?, or actually Left.(thinking that is...morons!)Rich and poor are relative terms.Rich,by what standard?....poor ?,...compared to who? Don't let Leftys get away with this silly word game...
# posted by : 11:25 AM
: 11:25 AM
Well first of all I am not a spokesperson for the Labour party, I am simply a member. I'm sure there are all kinds of people in Labour who understand all kinds of things.
"The Government can't beat the market" - I don't see the relationship between the Labour Government and the market as being one of competition. Instead, it should be viewed as one of collaberation; Labour is working to ensure that society harnesses the best benefits from the market, and that everybody can participate on an even and fair scale.
This is done by implementing good policies on education, which boosts productivity, and by looking after the health and well-being of the population where it is not by the market.
We have gone through some very good times, but it is the tough times that Labour Governments are good at handling.
I hope one day you will understand that unfettered markets led by policies such as those Rodney Hide and Roger Kerr embody will not produce the best results in the long term, as society simply cannot run forever so neglected.
As for the "whip them into work" factor, that just does not work. You incentivise people into work through friendly employment law, and good wages. Not the threat of massive poverty.
Post a Comment
"The Government can't beat the market" - I don't see the relationship between the Labour Government and the market as being one of competition. Instead, it should be viewed as one of collaberation; Labour is working to ensure that society harnesses the best benefits from the market, and that everybody can participate on an even and fair scale.
This is done by implementing good policies on education, which boosts productivity, and by looking after the health and well-being of the population where it is not by the market.
We have gone through some very good times, but it is the tough times that Labour Governments are good at handling.
I hope one day you will understand that unfettered markets led by policies such as those Rodney Hide and Roger Kerr embody will not produce the best results in the long term, as society simply cannot run forever so neglected.
As for the "whip them into work" factor, that just does not work. You incentivise people into work through friendly employment law, and good wages. Not the threat of massive poverty.
<< Home
