On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 14:41:37 +1300, Crash <
nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 13:50:33 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:08:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
Just looking at the 'Dancing Cossacks' ad gives the lie to the current >>>election campaign being the 'most divisive' - they all are, unless >>>'divisive' really means 'racially divisive'. This ad:
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/video/dancing-cossacks
played out in the 1975 election campaign and IIRC this was the first
use of TV ads in a political campaign. Note that back then there was
no public funding of political party advertising.
In its time that ad was very divisive, but the target audience for
National Party advertising does not have to be particularly
intelligent.
That is true of all parties - you are being disingenuous in singling
out National so as to introduce your usual anti-national rhetoric. The
target audience of party advertising (regardless of which party) is
easy to define - all voters.
History has shown the extent of the lie - we now have the
Kiwisaver Schemes and the NZ Superannuation Fund - neither of which
have resulted in the government taking over all New Zealand companies.
Incorrect. Modern schemes exist in an international investment world,
with nearly all such funds having significant investments offshore.
In 1975 we had a closed economy. All imports were licenced and
NZ-based manufacturing was protected using this mechanism. You want
to buy a new car - you could only buy one assembled in NZ and a high >percentage (50% IIRC) had to involve overseas currency (which had to
be earned through exports - it could not be bought directly). You
want to buy a TV - you had the choice of Pye or Philips, both
assembled in Waihi from imported components. I could continue with
Fisher & Paykel but you must surely understand what I am driving at by
now.
Kiwi investors could only invest locally and it was inferred that the
Labour super scheme could only invest in NZ. That was the basis of
this ad. There are no modern comparisons.
There definitely are modern comparisons - the large union-based
schemes stated in Australia (originally for low paid workers) have
developed to now support many workers in old age. Our Kiwisaver was
based in part on what had happened in Australia, but with more
investment managers competing at an individual level - a less
competitive market for investment management than in Australia - but
with contributions required in at least some cases from employers -
albeit those levels were watered down by National. Even in Australia
their super funds are not regarded as a threat to private enterprise -
they are seen as supporting local companies. Again the contrast here
is that National see need for money being met by selling assets to
overseas buyers - and unlike Australia we have as a result an
investment market that concentrates more on landlords and property
speculation for tax advantage then rewards for industrial
productivity. Had the original scheme of Labour continued, we would
probably still own at least one major bank, and a lot more of our
sharemarket - both by savings vehicles and by New Zealanders.
The willingness to invest overseas has been demonstrated by the
success of the "NZ Superannuation Fund" - the "Cullen" Fund, which
even National did not dare to dismantle - it has enabled our country
to smooth the surge in NZ Super costs which is not yet over; and the
success of Adrian Orr in leading the investment of that Fund has led
to the degree of trust shown in him by both the investment market and
the government. Again the scare of domination of the local market (and
yes that was used as an argument when it was first set up) has proven
false.
Worth watching again - Muldoon comes across as a previous generation
of Luxon - sadly Luxon may well be seen by history as just as
destructive to the interests of New Zealand as Muldoon turned out to
be.
Straying well away from the topic of my OP, but Luxon most certainly
has no similarities to Muldoon as he was in that ad. Muldoon was in >parliament for 15 years BEFORE he became PM. Muldoon achieved nothing
of note before becoming an MP - except being a partner in a small
accountancy practice (multi-national accountancy/consulting practices
were not permitted to operate in NZ). We are seeing the emergence of >candidate MPs coming into parliament from a measurably successful
commercial background. Its a pity Labour have so few of them.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)