Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 64003 2005-11-29 21:08:00 Interesting article. Cicero (40) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
408722 2005-12-01 21:34:00 It wasn't market forces either that brought about flush toilets, :)

Crapper was responsible for that. 		mikebartnz (21)
408723 2005-12-01 21:39:00 Looks like you have a pinky mate T.

It's no use,I will never understand people who think that lot in parliament know better than the market.
I concede that there have to be some constraints due to the greed factor,so limited government is the way to go.
Look at the big businesses that have been hocked off for a song to private enterprise and have needed to be bailed out by the tax payer.

BNZ twice
Air New Zealand
Railways

Someone might care to enlarge the list. 		mikebartnz (21)
408724 2005-12-03 06:42:00 Look at the big businesses that have been hocked off for a song to private enterprise and have needed to be bailed out by the tax payer.

BNZ twice
Air New Zealand
Railways

Someone might care to enlarge the list.

So Mike I imagine you are in favour of less government. Bailouts by taxpayers only occur when a business is owned by taxpayers. The less involved the government is in owning businesses, the less risk to taxpayers.

Why for goodness sake do we own an airline? You may be aware that Nauru is currently looking for an international aid package. This tiny island nation used to be one of the wealthiest places on Earth. What happened? They ran their own airline and shipping line - until the money ran out.

Former government businesses such as Government Print were sold for a song because of incompetant advice given to the government. But the BNZ was a vast turkey for Fay Richwhite as the buyer - the taxpayer was the winner on that sale. 		Winston001 (3612)
408725 2005-12-03 07:18:00 Must say,I have often wondered at the need to own an airline,why not just have open slather with respect to them coming to NZ,I am sure we would be the winners. Cicero (40)
408726 2005-12-03 09:00:00 ... You may be aware that Nauru is currently looking for an international aid package. This tiny island nation used to be one of the wealthiest places on Earth. What happened?....

The phosphate ran out of course :) 		Terry Porritt (14)
408727 2005-12-04 08:23:00 The phosphate ran out of course :)

Yes Terry but not the money. They had it to burn - so they did. :( 		Winston001 (3612)
408728 2005-12-04 21:33:00 Yes Terry but not the money. They had it to burn - so they did. :(

Yes, but their problems don't primarily stem from burning aircraft fuel, that is much too simplistic !

Actually you are not doing so well with your examples in this thread Winston ;) .

First we had Japan as an example of a flash free market successful economy, which ignored the fact that their economy had been built on the back of Japanese governments successively targetting specific industrial sectors and 'picking winners', and their implementation of a very strong industrial protectionism policy against imported goods, and also imported agricultural products.

Now Nauru is just a basket case, whose situation is typical of colonial exploitation at it very worst.

First a fairly unbiased academic summary of the effects of mining in Nauru
www.american.edu


Then from a book review:
"In a captivating and moving style, the authors describe how the island became one of the richest nations in the world and how its citizens acquired all the ills of modern life: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension. At the same time, Nauru became 80 percent mined-out ruins that contain severely impoverished biological communities of little value in supporting human habitation.

This sad tale highlights the dire consequences of a free-market economy, a system in direct conflict with sustaining the environment. In presenting evidence for the current mass extinction, the authors argue that we cannot expect to preserve biodiversity or support sustainable habitation, because our economic operating principles are incompatible with these activities."

Extract above from this book review:
www.ucpress.edu

Then from Scoop of just over a year ago:
www.scoop.co.nz

It all adds up to a shambles with little relevance to government owned businesses in New Zealand, or any other western country, or to Air New Zealand in particular. 		Terry Porritt (14)
408729 2005-12-04 23:05:00 Humiliated, I shamefully crawl onto my motionless aeroplane and wait for the runway to start moving. :help: Winston001 (3612)
408730 2005-12-04 23:23:00 No, no, I'm just being perverse :) Nauru is probably an extreme example of government incompetence, but it would be expecting a lot of them to have been successful, given the background.

Maybe they should have had free enterprise to have run the country on their behalf? 		Terry Porritt (14)
408731 2005-12-05 00:41:00 The damned runway is flashing past but we're not going anywhere! Who'd have thought Nauru airport was so big? :p Maybe I'll turn the engines on, just for the halibat . . . . . . . . . . . . :thumbs:

Looks like the King of Samoa has done much the same as Nauru .

So anyway, the question is - when is protectionism justified? We can consider Keynesian economics and Roosevelts New Deal as pointers . The theory (which moved on from Adam Smith and laisse faire economics), was that governments could protect the community . Borrowing and spending in bad times, taxing and saving in good times . And it works - sort of .

By extension, protection of the borders from imports allows the local community to substitute locally made products . And develop local manufacturing . It protects jobs when times are tough from outside competition .

The difficulty is that there is no incentive to focus on efficency or quality . I concede your observations regarding coming to NZ and the good quality you found . Today the quality range is all over the place but at least we all have plenty of choice .

If protectionism was good, in fact great, why does any country have open trade borders? 		Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4