On 8/28/2017 5:06 PM, BR wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:04:10 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Clearly you do have political preferences, but you my well be one of those >> "useful idiots" that think that by not being a member of a political
party you are somehow "not political."

So Rich80105 is a member of a political party.

Fancy that.

Bill.

Shock horror who would have guessed ..
Looks like the Peters thing has bought the silence of grey power with
the gold card.
Pity.
You'd think they of all groups would value honesty and the accurate
filling out of such forms by a lawyer and parliamentarian...


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action
until after the election, but National may have another - either way, >>>> >its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality: >>>>

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership by >>>> this government that shielded us from most of the international crises >>>> of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to
benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being paid >>>> to govern the country which includes managing the economy - something
they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in
the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle
any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election
may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any
partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag
about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a >>>revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I doubt >>that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it well >>enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since
2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government
shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not
completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one company
over another.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following
this election, Tony.

--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:06 PM, BR wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:04:10 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Clearly you do have political preferences, but you my well be one of those >>> "useful idiots" that think that by not being a member of a political
party you are somehow "not political."

So Rich80105 is a member of a political party.

Fancy that.

Bill.

Shock horror who would have guessed ..
Looks like the Peters thing has bought the silence of grey power with
the gold card.
Pity.
You'd think they of all groups would value honesty and the accurate
filling out of such forms by a lawyer and parliamentarian...

Do you have any evidence he filled a form out wrongly?

But lets leave aside you delete and change the subject gambit, eh
george?

Back to the subject: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action
until after the election, but National may have another - either way,
its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to
benefit owners not workers . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>> >until after the election, but National may have another - either way, >>>>> >its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality: >>>>>

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership by >>>>> this government that shielded us from most of the international crises >>>>> of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>> >benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being paid >>>>> to govern the country which includes managing the economy - something >>>>> they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag
about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a >>>>revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I doubt >>>that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it well >>>enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since
2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working New >Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. The >government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one company
over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
hte asset for sale!

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly
consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should
provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following
this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>>> >until after the election, but National may have another - either
way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from
reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership >>>>>> by this government that shielded us from most of the international >>>>>> crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>>> >benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy -
something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag >>>>>> about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be >>>>>a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it >>>>well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since
2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working
New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money
so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to do and it's unethical.

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain.
The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
hte asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be
allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly
consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance)
would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice with regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be forced to prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest.

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following
this election, Tony.

--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 8/30/2017 10:31 PM, Pooh wrote:

On 29/08/2017 8:25 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:06 PM, BR wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:04:10 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Clearly you do have political preferences, but you my well be one
of those
"useful idiots" that think that by not being a member of a political >>>>> party you are somehow "not political."

So Rich80105 is a member  of a political party.

Fancy that.

Bill.

Shock horror who would have guessed ..
Looks like the Peters thing has bought the silence of grey power with
the gold card.
Pity.
You'd think they of all groups would value honesty and the accurate
filling out of such forms by a lawyer and parliamentarian...

Do you have any evidence he filled a form out wrongly?

But lets leave aside you delete and change the subject gambit, eh
george?

Back to the subject:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/


They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action
until after the election, but National may have another - either way,
its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation


Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to
benefit owners not workers . . .

Considering that most of those on Super that I know had the forms filled
out buy MSD AND they get a letter from MSD every year checking on
whether the details are still accurate. I'm bloody suspicious of
Winston's story!

It gets filled out by the bloke behind the counter and you first time out.
From then on you get a form generally every year asking if anything has changed and if so put it on the form and send it back.
Otherwise do nothing


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>>>> >until after the election, but National may have another - either >>>>>>> >way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from
reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership >>>>>>> by this government that shielded us from most of the international >>>>>>> crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>>>> >benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag >>>>>>> about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be >>>>>>a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it >>>>>well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money
so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to do >and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell
Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>>completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>>company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be >allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's >certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion. If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly
consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should
provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance) >would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice with >regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be forced to >prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest.

The current govenment is not propping it up - Kiwibank is operating
without capital input. Kiwibank has provided real competition tot he
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following
this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:09:48 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>> dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>>>> >until after the election, but National may have another - either >>>>>>> >way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from >>>>>>> >reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership >>>>>>> by this government that shielded us from most of the international >>>>>>> crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>>>> >benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag >>>>>>> about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be >>>>>>a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it >>>>>well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money >so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to do >and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>>completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>>company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be >allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's >certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion. If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly >>>> consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should
provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance) >would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice with >regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be forced to >prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest.

The current govenment is not propping it up

But since the bank is, effectively, owned by the government and any serious hiccup would whack the entire NZ banking system, you can take it as read that the government would then prop it up in the most expeditious way it could.

Kiwibank is operating
without capital input. Kiwibank has provided real competition tot he
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

"The stable outlook on Kiwibank reflects our expectation that the bank will retain its focus on relatively lower-risk residential lending while
maintaining its risk-adjusted capital ratio above 10%. The stable outlook also reflects our expectation that the bank's current market position and funding profile will remain largely unchanged over the next two years."

(Standard and Poors, Feb 2017)

As well to remember that S&P have form. In 2001, S%P gave Enron a glowing AAA just before it collapsed and its infestation of bandit executives got their comeuppance.

S$P also garlanded Lehman with an impeccable AAA 3 days before it collapsed in 2008, setting off the sub-prime domino collapse around the world.

(The level of the credit rating is proportional to the amount their client is willing to pay them for it and also, of course, whatever fancy numbers said client slips to them.)

Last year, Kiwibank:

Grew lending and advances to customers by 7.0% from $15.6 billion to $16.7 billion.

Grew customer deposits by 7.6% from $13.7 billion to $14.8 billion.

Saw a 15% reduction in impairment losses on loans and advances to $11million.

Kiwibank now operates over 1 million customer accounts, with 419,000 customers now identifying Kiwibank as their main financial institution.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 29/08/2017 8:00 a.m., george152 wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:06 PM, BR wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:04:10 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Clearly you do have political preferences, but you my well be one of
those
"useful idiots" that think that by not being a member of a political
party you are somehow "not political."

So Rich80105 is a member of a political party.

Fancy that.

Bill.

Shock horror who would have guessed ..
Looks like the Peters thing has bought the silence of grey power with
the gold card.
Pity.
You'd think they of all groups would value honesty and the accurate
filling out of such forms by a lawyer and parliamentarian...

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Oi! I've got a gold card! It reminds me that Winnie is open to bribes if
it'll let him get his hands on the baubles of power!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 29/08/2017 8:25 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:00:51 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 8/28/2017 5:06 PM, BR wrote:

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:04:10 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Clearly you do have political preferences, but you my well be one of those >>>> "useful idiots" that think that by not being a member of a political
party you are somehow "not political."

So Rich80105 is a member of a political party.

Fancy that.

Bill.

Shock horror who would have guessed ..
Looks like the Peters thing has bought the silence of grey power with
the gold card.
Pity.
You'd think they of all groups would value honesty and the accurate
filling out of such forms by a lawyer and parliamentarian...

Do you have any evidence he filled a form out wrongly?

But lets leave aside you delete and change the subject gambit, eh
george?

Back to the subject: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action
until after the election, but National may have another - either way,
its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to
benefit owners not workers . . .

Considering that most of those on Super that I know had the forms filled
out buy MSD AND they get a letter from MSD every year checking on
whether the details are still accurate. I'm bloody suspicious of
Winston's story!

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 30/08/2017 3:09 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12,
nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>>>>>> until after the election, but National may have another - either >>>>>>>>> way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from >>>>>>>>> reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership >>>>>>>> by this government that shielded us from most of the international >>>>>>>> crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>>>>>> benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag >>>>>>>> about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>> banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be >>>>>>> a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>> doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it >>>>>> well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>> New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>> shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money >> so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to do >> and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not
completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>> The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one
company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be
allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's
certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion. If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly >>>>> consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should
provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance)
would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice with >> regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be forced to >> prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest.

The current govenment is not propping it up - Kiwibank is operating
without capital input. Kiwibank has provided real competition tot he
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

KiwiBank has been subsidised by the state owned New Zealand Post Ltd.
It's provided no competition at all to the Aussie banks!

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following >>>>> this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 29/08/2017 11:34 a.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12,
nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem action >>>>>>> until after the election, but National may have another - either way, >>>>>>> its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from reality: >>>>>>

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the leadership by >>>>>> this government that shielded us from most of the international crises >>>>>> of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid to >>>>>>> benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being paid >>>>>> to govern the country which includes managing the economy - something >>>>>> they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management in >>>>>> the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to handle >>>>>> any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next election >>>>>> may be different but if Labour are able to form a government with any >>>>>> partners that remain they will no doubt address the issue and brag >>>>>> about how well they are doing. After all that is what governments do. >>>>>

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our
banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a >>>>> revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I doubt >>>> that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand it well >>>> enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since
2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working New >> Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government
shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

Since when did 'investments' require regular top ups of capital Rich?
But guess you're using the Marxist dictionary where investment means
keep the bloody albatross propped up with taxpayers money!

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not
completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. The >> government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one company
over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
hte asset for sale!

KiwiBank has been constrained by lack of customers Rich! Other banks
sell shares. They don't expect government largess.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly
consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following
this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem >>>>>>>> >action until after the election, but National may have another - >>>>>>>> >either way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from >>>>>>>> >reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the
leadership by this government that shielded us from most of the >>>>>>>> international crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid >>>>>>>> >to benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management >>>>>>>> in the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to >>>>>>>> handle any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next
election may be different but if Labour are able to form a
government with any partners that remain they will no doubt address >>>>>>>> the issue and brag about how well they are doing. After all that is >>>>>>>> what governments do.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would >>>>>>>be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>>doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand >>>>>>it well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>>New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>>shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money >>so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to >>do and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

I find it odd that you want more capital injected into Kiwibank but you
support a system where all but one organisation is allowed to provide that capital. It makes no sense.

Open it up for investment. That's how normal businesses operate. They don't rely on wealth confiscated from other business and individuals (for them to
do that would be illegal, but the government has special rules that only
apply to them).

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>>>completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>>The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>>>company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be >>allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's >>certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion.

How many of those companies get their income through compulsory wealth confiscation using a threat of force? You cannot compare the government with
a private company because the rules under which they operate are very different.

If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

Selling Kiwibank doesn't mean "selling to only one party". It can be
privatised through many shareholders. Even if the government retains a controlling share, they should allow others to buy a slice.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using
private capital for public/private partnerships when the government
can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly >>>>> consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the
government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should
provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance) >>would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice
with regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be >>forced to prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest.

The current govenment is not propping it up - Kiwibank is operating
without capital input.

If that were true it would be a good thing. I suspect though that they are being propped up by NZ Post.

Kiwibank has provided real competition tot he
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

There are NZ banks other than Kiwibank. Did they not provide "real" competition?

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following >>>>> this election, Tony.

--
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:06:58 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>> dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12, >>>>>>>>nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem >>>>>>>>> >action until after the election, but National may have another - >>>>>>>>> >either way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from >>>>>>>>> >reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the
leadership by this government that shielded us from most of the >>>>>>>>> international crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid >>>>>>>>> >to benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management >>>>>>>>> in the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to >>>>>>>>> handle any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next >>>>>>>>> election may be different but if Labour are able to form a
government with any partners that remain they will no doubt address >>>>>>>>> the issue and brag about how well they are doing. After all that is >>>>>>>>> what governments do.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>>>banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would >>>>>>>>be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford. >>>>>>>Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?

I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>>>doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand >>>>>>>it well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>>>New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>>>shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money >>>so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to >>>do and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell
Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

I find it odd that you want more capital injected into Kiwibank but you >support a system where all but one organisation is allowed to provide that >capital. It makes no sense.

Open it up for investment. That's how normal businesses operate. They don't >rely on wealth confiscated from other business and individuals (for them to >do that would be illegal, but the government has special rules that only >apply to them).

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>>>>completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>>>The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>>>>company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be >>>allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's >>>certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion.

How many of those companies get their income through compulsory wealth >confiscation using a threat of force? You cannot compare the government with >a private company because the rules under which they operate are very >different.

If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

Selling Kiwibank doesn't mean "selling to only one party". It can be >privatised through many shareholders. Even if the government retains a >controlling share, they should allow others to buy a slice.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using >>>>>> private capital for public/private partnerships when the government >>>>>> can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly >>>>>> consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the >>>>>> government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses,
capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should >>>> provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide
private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance) >>>would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice >>>with regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be >>>forced to prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest. >>

The current govenment is not propping it up - Kiwibank is operating
without capital input.

If that were true it would be a good thing. I suspect though that they are >being propped up by NZ Post.

I think they are no longer linked closely with NZ Post. In the early
days there were advantages to both in shared shopfronts, but I don't
think there was much dividend flow in either direction.

Kiwibank has provided real competition to the
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

There are NZ banks other than Kiwibank. Did they not provide "real" >competition?

From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(banking)#Australia.2FNew_Zealand

Being New Zealand's closest neighbour, with very close ties culturally
and economically, has helped Australia dominate the banking sector
there. Often referred to collectively as the 'big banks'[4][5][6] or
the 'big Aussie banks', the "Big Four" Australian banks also dominate
the New Zealand banking sector in the form of:

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, or ANZ, also comprising the
former business of The National Bank.
ASB Bank, formerly Auckland Savings Bank, wholly owned by the
Commonwealth Bank
The Bank of New Zealand (BNZ), wholly owned by the National Australia
Bank
Westpac, formerly known as WestpacTrust after a merger with the Trust
Bank.
Together they hold over 90% of gross loans and advances in New Zealand
[7] as well as close to 90% of all mortgages.[8]

These four subsidiaries are massively profitable and in some cases
even outperform the Australian parent company.[9] The extent to which
they dominate the banking sector can be seen in profits: In the
2012/2013 financial year, the largest of the Big Banks, ANZ New
Zealand, made a profit of NZ$1.37 billion. The smallest, BNZ, made a
profit of NZ$695 million.[4] State-owned Kiwibank, community
trust-owned TSB Bank, SBS Bank (formerly Southland Building Society)
and Heartland Bank, the next four largest banks by profit, made NZ$97 million,[10] NZ$73.5 million,[11] NZ$14 million[12] and NZ$7 million
(albeit with an underlying result of about NZ$30 million)
respectively.[13] In other words, the profit of New Zealand's next
four largest banks (after the Big Four) is equal to less than 30% of
the smallest of the Big Four, BNZ.

Teh sort of problems taht can be caused by a bank not being able to
get direct additional equity from its shareholdders can be seen here: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/03/15/12029/the-day-a-banks-191-mln-transaction-was-declined

There is no doubt that Kiwibank could have been more successful with
governmetn support over the last 8 years.

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not
always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the
stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following >>>>>> this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 1/09/2017 8:04 p.m., Rich80105 wrote:

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:06:58 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 07:57:16 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 08:57:43 +1200, Allistar <me@hiddenaddress.com>
wrote:

Rich80105 wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:18:03 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>> dot nz> wrote:

jmschristophers@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:44:04 AM UTC+12,
nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/25-08-2017/wait-that-national-party-campaign-tune-does-sound-a-lot-like-this-bob-dylan-song/

They Courts look like they will hold a decision on the Eminem >>>>>>>>>>> action until after the election, but National may have another - >>>>>>>>>>> either way, its egg on their face . . .

But perhaps it is all part of a cunning plan to distract from >>>>>>>>>>> reality:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/96155057/business-profits-leap-ahead-while-wages-struggle-to-outpace-inflation

Excellent news, exactly what the economy needs; after the
leadership by this government that shielded us from most of the >>>>>>>>>> international crises of the
past
decade.

Play the fool all they want - they know that they are being paid >>>>>>>>>>> to benefit owners not workers . . .

They are not being paid to do anything of the sort, they are being >>>>>>>>>> paid to govern the country which includes managing the economy - >>>>>>>>>> something they have done admiarably.
Once the dust settles and the unavaoidable cost of that management >>>>>>>>>> in the
face
of a global crisis is paid off there will be an opportunity to >>>>>>>>>> handle any
wage
disparities.
For 3 elections they were the government of choice, the next >>>>>>>>>> election may be different but if Labour are able to form a >>>>>>>>>> government with any partners that remain they will no doubt address >>>>>>>>>> the issue and brag about how well they are doing. After all that is >>>>>>>>>> what governments do.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our >>>>>>>>> banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would >>>>>>>>> be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford.

Presumably referring to the USA. How does that relate to us?
I for one understand our banking and monetary system pretty well, I >>>>>>>> doubt that I am alone; in fact I believe the majority may understand >>>>>>>> it well enough! Tony

You will be in a good position to explain why our government has since >>>>>>> 2008 been giving only minimal support for Kiwibank

You mean why they haven't taken money they confiscate from hard working >>>>>> New Zealanders to give to a multi-million dollar company? The government >>>>>> shouldn't give Kiwibank a single cent. It should be sold.

It is an investment. If you owned a business you would not
deliberately allow it to experience a loss of market share through
underfunding capacity - certainly not at a time when the banking
market is making very good profits!

I wouldn't go to my neighbours house than demand that he give me his money >>>> so I can invest in a bank. That's what you're expecting the government to >>>> do and it's unethical.

The government established Kiwibank at very little cost - from memory
they purchased a couple of small players and it went from there.
Taxation is collected for a variety of purposes, but in the contect of
this discussion Kiwibank already exists. If a governmetn wished to
sell it, then it would make sense to "dress it for sale", by taking a
year or two to ensure that it has a reasonable market share; that is
what I was referring to. Thankfully no parties are proposing to sell
Kiwibank, but National are wasting its value by allowing it to decline
in value.

I find it odd that you want more capital injected into Kiwibank but you
support a system where all but one organisation is allowed to provide that >> capital. It makes no sense.

Open it up for investment. That's how normal businesses operate. They don't >> rely on wealth confiscated from other business and individuals (for them to >> do that would be illegal, but the government has special rules that only
apply to them).

and aiding the
largely Australian banks send record profits offshore.

?? People voluntarily choose to do business with banks that are not >>>>>> completely NZ owned. That's their free choice and I it needs to remain. >>>>>> The government should not try an "persuade" people to trade with one >>>>>> company over another.

Kiwibank has been constrained by lack of shareholder capital. The
neglect appears ideological - it is certainly not based on dressing
the asset for sale!

No shareholders but one have the option to invest. The public should be >>>> allowed to purchase shares. This restriction appears ideological, it's >>>> certainly not based on sound business reasoning.

There are many examples of privat companies owned by a single
shareholder - it is not unusual; it provides greater flexibility and
lower costs than a listed company, at the expense of in many cases a
reduced ability to fund expansion.

How many of those companies get their income through compulsory wealth
confiscation using a threat of force? You cannot compare the government with >> a private company because the rules under which they operate are very
different.

If you are wanting Kiwibank to be
sold, it is probably more easily sold through having just one
shareholder.

Selling Kiwibank doesn't mean "selling to only one party". It can be
privatised through many shareholders. Even if the government retains a
controlling share, they should allow others to buy a slice.

You may also be able to explain just what the benefits are of using >>>>>>> private capital for public/private partnerships when the government >>>>>>> can borrow at lower rates, and when overseas experience has a fairly >>>>>>> consistent pattern of heads the private partner profits, tails the >>>>>>> government loses (you may prefer the expression socialise losses, >>>>>>> capitalise profits).

I agree. The solution is for it to be 100% privately funded.

Upgrading roads would require assistance from government, and
subsidies would be required for any private company to produce a
commercial return. In effect I am quetioning why the government should >>>>> provide those subsidies to ensure additional project costs to provide >>>>> private profit from use of taxpayer funds.

Kiwibank should be sold. Then less government (i.e. taxpayer assistance) >>>> would be required. Some people don't want this form of personal choice >>>> with regards to Kiwibank, they think it's much better for people to be >>>> forced to prop it up with no choice than to be able to voluntarily invest. >>>

The current govenment is not propping it up - Kiwibank is operating
without capital input.

If that were true it would be a good thing. I suspect though that they are >> being propped up by NZ Post.

I think they are no longer linked closely with NZ Post. In the early
days there were advantages to both in shared shopfronts, but I don't
think there was much dividend flow in either direction.

So who is propping up KiwiBank Rich. NZPost stopped propping them up
when they started going down the gurgler. Hell KiwiBank is a BANK it
should be funding itself like all the other banks. Not relying on
handouts from the government like your below average Labour voter!

Kiwibank has provided real competition to the
overseas owned banks, who, like the petrol companies do tend to
maximise profits in a way that would be more difficult in a more
diversified market.

There are NZ banks other than Kiwibank. Did they not provide "real"
competition?

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(banking)#Australia.2FNew_Zealand

Being New Zealand's closest neighbour, with very close ties culturally
and economically, has helped Australia dominate the banking sector
there. Often referred to collectively as the 'big banks'[4][5][6] or
the 'big Aussie banks', the "Big Four" Australian banks also dominate
the New Zealand banking sector in the form of:

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, or ANZ, also comprising the
former business of The National Bank.
ASB Bank, formerly Auckland Savings Bank, wholly owned by the
Commonwealth Bank
The Bank of New Zealand (BNZ), wholly owned by the National Australia
Bank
Westpac, formerly known as WestpacTrust after a merger with the Trust
Bank.
Together they hold over 90% of gross loans and advances in New Zealand
[7] as well as close to 90% of all mortgages.[8]

These four subsidiaries are massively profitable and in some cases
even outperform the Australian parent company.[9] The extent to which
they dominate the banking sector can be seen in profits: In the
2012/2013 financial year, the largest of the Big Banks, ANZ New
Zealand, made a profit of NZ$1.37 billion. The smallest, BNZ, made a
profit of NZ$695 million.[4] State-owned Kiwibank, community
trust-owned TSB Bank, SBS Bank (formerly Southland Building Society)
and Heartland Bank, the next four largest banks by profit, made NZ$97 million,[10] NZ$73.5 million,[11] NZ$14 million[12] and NZ$7 million
(albeit with an underlying result of about NZ$30 million)
respectively.[13] In other words, the profit of New Zealand's next
four largest banks (after the Big Four) is equal to less than 30% of
the smallest of the Big Four, BNZ.

Teh sort of problems taht can be caused by a bank not being able to
get direct additional equity from its shareholdders can be seen here: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/03/15/12029/the-day-a-banks-191-mln-transaction-was-declined

There is no doubt that Kiwibank could have been more successful with governmetn support over the last 8 years.

Successful banks don't need government support. KiwiBank is another dud
Labour 'investment' that should be sold and left to sink or swim on it's
own like real banks!

Thank you for your honest and consistent opinions Allistar. We do not >>>>> always agree, and even when we do it is sometimes for different
reasons, but different views are important for rational discussion.

With your good understanding I'm sure you can readily justify the >>>>>>> stances being taken by one of the contendors for government following >>>>>>> this election, Tony.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)