Friday, September 30, 2022
Thursday, September 29, 2022
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
Monday, September 26, 2022
Sunday, September 25, 2022
In my assumption in trying to think about thousands of psychedelic trips, rather than just mine, what they seem to do, generically is that they seem to dissolve boundaries. And the ego is in the business of creating maintaining and defending boundaries. So I really see the psychedelics as directly intervening in the core process which is running us over the edge, which is, our inability to emotionally connect with the consequences of what we are doing. If for a single moment we could feel what we are doing, we would stop.. -A Conversation Between Ram Dass & Terence McKenna
Saturday, September 24, 2022
Friday, September 23, 2022
"6% forced unemployment. Fakes job competition. Stops wages rising." Rice And Beans Gallery. Dunedin, New Zealand April 7th, 2011 "50,000 people may need to lose their jobs to bring inflation under control" Rob Stock Stuff Business 05:00, Sep 23 2022 - Yeah I told you so
"6% forced unemployment. Fakes job competition. Stops wages rising." Rice And Beans Gallery. Dunedin, New Zealand. April 7th, 2011
Do you believe that the CIA today — a CIA free from all consequence and accountability — is uninvolved in similar activities? Can you find no presence of their fingerprints in the events of the world, as described in the headlines, that provide cause for concern? Yet it is those who question the wisdom of placing a paramilitary organization beyond the reach of our courts that are dismissed as “naive.” - Snowden
America’s Open Wound
The CIA is not your friend
“Better that right counsels be known to enemies than that the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.”
― Baruch Spinoza
It hasn’t been a month since President Biden mounted the steps of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, declaring it his duty to ensure each of us understands the central faction of his political opposition are extremists that “threaten the very foundations of our Republic.” Flanked by the uniformed icons of his military and standing atop a Leni Riefenstahl stage, the leader clenched his fists to illustrate seizing the future from the forces of “fear, division, and darkness.” The words falling from the teleprompter ran rich with the language of violence, a “dagger at the throat” emerging from the “shadow of lies.”
“What’s happening in our country,” the President said, “is not normal.”
Is he wrong to think that? The question the speech intended to raise—the one lost in the unintentionally villainous pageantry—is whether and how we are to continue as a democracy and a nation of laws. For all the Twitter arguments over Biden’s propositions, there has been little consideration of his premises.
Democracy and the rule of law have been so frequently invoked as a part of the American political brand that we simply take it for granted that we enjoy both.
Are we right to think that?
Our glittering nation of laws observes this year two birthdays: the 70th anniversary of the National Security Agency, on which my thoughts have been recorded, and the 75th anniversary of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA was founded in the wake of the 1947 National Security Act. The Act foresaw no need for the Courts and Congress to oversee a simple information-aggregation facility, and therefore subordinated it exclusively to the President, through the National Security Council he controls.
Within a year, the young agency had already slipped the leash of its intended role of intelligence collection and analysis to establish a covert operations division. Within a decade, the CIA was directing the coverage of American news organizations, overthrowing democratically elected governments (at times merely to benefit a favored corporation), establishing propaganda outfits to manipulate public sentiment, launching a long-running series of mind-control experiments on unwitting human subjects (purportedly contributing to the creation of the Unabomber), and—gasp—interfering with foreign elections. From there, it was a short hop to wiretapping journalists and compiling files on Americans who opposed its wars.
In 1963, no less than former President Harry Truman confessed that the very agency he personally signed into law had transformed into something altogether different than he intended, writing:
“For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble…”
Many today comfort themselves by imagining that the Agency has been reformed, and that such abuses are relics of the distant past, but what few reforms our democracy has won have been watered-down or compromised. The limited “Intelligence Oversight” role that was eventually conceded to Congress in order to placate the public has never been taken seriously by either the committee’s majority—which prefers cheerleading over investigating—or by the Agency itself, which continues to conceal politically-sensitive operations from the very group most likely to defend them.
"Congress should have been told," said [Senator] Dianne Feinstein. "We should have been briefed before the commencement of this kind of sensitive program. Director Panetta... was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to Congress."
How can we judge the ultimate effectiveness of oversight and reforms? Well, the CIA plotted to assassinate my friend, American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, in 1972, yet nearly fifty years of “reforms” did little to inhibit them from recently sketching out another political murder targeting Julian Assange. Putting that in perspective, you probably own shoes older than the CIA’s most recent plot to murder a dissident... or rather the most recent plot that we know of.
If you believe the Assange case to be a historical anomaly, some aberration unique to Trump White House, recall that the CIA’s killings have continued in series across administrations. Obama ordered the killing of an American far from any battlefield, and killed his 16 year-old American son a few weeks later, but the man’s American daughter was still alive by the time Obama left.
Within a month of entering the White House, Trump killed her.
She was 8 years old.
It goes beyond assassinations. Within recent memory, the CIA captured Gul Rahman, who we know was not Al-Qaeda, but it seems did save the life of Afghanistan’s future (pro-US) President. Rahman was placed in what the Agency described as a “dungeon” and tortured until he died.
They stripped him naked, save a diaper he couldn’t change, in a cold so wicked that his guards, in their warm clothes, ran heaters for themselves. In absolute darkness, they bolted his hands and feet to a single point on the floor with a very short chain so that it was impossible to stand or lie down – a practice called “short shackling” – and after he died, claimed that it was for his own safety. They admit to beating him, even describing the “forceful punches.” They describe the blood that ran from his nose and mouth as he died.
Pages later, in their formal conclusion, the Agency declares that there was no evidence of beating. There was no of evidence torture. The CIA ascribes responsibility for his death to hypothermia, which they blamed on him for the crime of refusing, on his final night, a meal from the men that killed him.
In the aftermath, the Agency concealed the death of Gul Rahman from his family. To this day, they refuse to reveal what happened to his remains, denying those who survive him a burial, or even some locus of mourning.
Ten years after the torture program investigated, exposed, and ended, no one was charged for their role in these crimes. The man responsible for Rahman’s death was recommended for a $2,500 cash award — for “consistently superior work”.
A different torturer was elevated to the Director’s seat.
This summer, in a speech marking the occasion of the CIA's 75th birthday, President Biden struck a quite different note than he did in Philadelphia, reciting what the CIA instructs all presidents: that the soul of the institution really lies in speaking truth to power.
“We turn to you with the big questions,” Biden said, “the hardest questions. And we count on you to give your best, unvarnished assessment of where we are. And I emphasize ‘unvarnished.’”
But this itself is a variety of varnishing — a whitewash.
For what reason do we aspire to maintain — or achieve — a nation of laws, if not to establish justice?
Let us say we have a democracy, shining and pure. The people, or in our case some subset of people, institute reasonable laws to which government and citizen alike must answer. The sense of justice that arises within such a society is not produced as a result of the mere presence of law, which can be tyrannical and capricious, or even elections, which face their own troubles, but is rather derived from the reason and fairness of the system that results.
What would happen if we were to insert into this beautiful nation of laws an extralegal entity that is not directed by the people, but a person: the President? Have we protected the nation’s security, or have we placed it at risk?
This is the unvarnished truth: the establishment of an institution charged with breaking the law within a nation of laws has mortally wounded its founding precept.
From the year it was established, Presidents and their cadres have regularly directed the CIA to go beyond the law for reasons that cannot be justified, and therefore must be concealed — classified. The primary result of the classification system is not an increase in national security, but a decrease in transparency. Without meaningful transparency, there is no accountability, and without accountability, there is no learning.
The consequences have been deadly, for both Americans and our victims. When the CIA armed the Mujaheddin to wage war on Soviet Afghanistan, we created al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. Ten years later, the CIA is arming, according to then-Vice President Joe Biden, "al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world." After the CIA runs a disinformation operation to make life hard for the Soviet Union by fueling a little proxy war, the war rages for twenty-six years — far beyond the Union’s collapse.
Do you believe that the CIA today — a CIA free from all consequence and accountability — is uninvolved in similar activities? Can you find no presence of their fingerprints in the events of the world, as described in the headlines, that provide cause for concern? Yet it is those who question the wisdom of placing a paramilitary organization beyond the reach of our courts that are dismissed as “naive.”
For 75 years, the American people have been unable to bend the CIA to fit the law, and so the law has been bent to fit the CIA. As Biden stood on the crimson stage, at the site where the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were debated and adopted, his words rang out like the cry of a cracked-to-hell Liberty Bell: “What's happening in our country is not normal.”
If only that were true.
Thursday, September 22, 2022
Tuesday, September 20, 2022
A Republic is possible Technically, a shift to a republic could be quite straightforward in terms of the Treaty. After all the British Crown no longer actually has Treaty responsibilities – those are now with the New Zealand Government.
Bryce Edwards: Why New Zealand’s shift to a republic will be thwarted
The death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension to the throne of King Charles has reignited the debate on whether New Zealand should become a republic. But despite strong arguments in favour of shifting to a republic, such a move is unlikely to occur anytime soon.
What will stop the republican movement from gaining ground and winning over a majority of New Zealanders to ditch the monarchy? The answer is Treaty politics.
The shift to a republic cannot be separated from this now-dominant aspect of New Zealand politics. To argue for a shift to a republic in 2022 is to enter into a debate about the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Māori language version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, in our constitutional framework. These are very fraught debates, which have the potential to divide a nation.
A Republic is possible
Technically, a shift to a republic could be quite straightforward in terms of the Treaty. After all the British Crown no longer actually has Treaty responsibilities – those are now with the New Zealand Government. A move to a republic could, with a simple change of law, shift the formal Treaty partnership to the new head of state.
As Geoffrey Palmer said this week, “The fact that you get a new head of state wouldn’t affect at all the obligations in relation to the treaty… I know some people think it would, but it wouldn’t.”
There has long been a myth that the Treaty of Waitangi would be diminished by the demise of the monarchy in this country. Countless scholars show that this concern is not warranted. And surveys show that Māori are keener on becoming a republic than others.
New constitutional debates will be part of republicanism
However, constitutional debates have evolved significantly in this country, and now centre on the Treaty and indigenous rights. Witness recent governments’ incorporation of the Treaty into governing arrangements. The whole design of the Three Waters reform programme is centrally based on the role of iwi, for example.
The concept of co-governance has become an innovation that politicians are seeking to insert into more institutions. And many other proposals in the Labour Government’s He Puapua document will at some stage need to be discussed in terms of constitutional changes.
So any debate about shifting to a republic will automatically involve important consideration of how the Treaty and indigenous rights will be recognised and elevated in a new constitution. Māori aspirations will therefore reshape the republican movement – because in 2022 and onwards you can no longer deal with constitutional reform such as republicanism without a very serious debate about radical constitutional change involving tangata whenua.
Don McKinnon was reported this week as believing that “Māori would not agree to a republic without seeking concessions from the Government.” He told journalist Richard Harman, “Māori signed the treaty with the British Crown, and I would think there’d be a significant number of Māori who say, well, we’re not prepared to give up being a realm until we see far more equality within New Zealand today.” Similarly, law professor Andrew Geddis is quoted today saying a shift to a republic would require some sort of “reconceptualisation of Te Tiriti”.
The big republican debate will therefore be about placing the Treaty at the centre of the new constitution. And this could involve significant changes to the whole political system, including Parliament.
As political commentator and former MP Liz Gordon writes this week, “Māori will, if the matter arises, be asking for significantly more say in the governance of the nation. The Treaty of Waitangi, itself a kind of balance of powers, will need to be rewritten to provide shared kawanatanga and a new model of tino rangatiratanga.” And she is optimistic that this can be achieved, especially if such a model arises from Te Ao Māori itself: “if Māori can come together and propose a form of leadership that shares esteem and powers and takes us forward, such proposals would be unstoppable.”
For some in the republican movement these discussions about the role of the Treaty and Māori will be seen as a barrier to change, as debates that might once have simply been about whether New Zealand deserves to have a head of state determined by birth in aristocratic family in a far-off country, will instead be about more charged ethnicity and race issues.
Republicanism as a culture war
In this new environment, it might prove more difficult to win over support for a republic. While many New Zealanders, both Māori and pakeha, will be keen on ditching King Charles as our head of state, they might wince at the proposals for who replaces him, and what comes with that republicanism.
Although the current leaders of the Labour and National parties might profess to be republicans, they will run a mile from being associated with culture wars. Both Jacinda Ardern and Christopher Luxon will be keen to distances themselves from the fallout from what could be an ugly and divisive debate on New Zealand’s constitutional future. This isn’t simply about being cowardly and unwilling to front something they believe in, it’s more profound than that – not wanting to see the country descend into acrimonious debate with the potential to divide even their own parties and supporters.
When it comes down to it, there’s probably only a small proportion of New Zealand society who are fervent monarchists or republicans. People generally don’t feel that strongly about who our head of state is. In fact, a recent survey showed that only 18% of the public even know who occupies this position. But a much larger proportion of society cares about issues of racial injustice and radical reforms. It’s no surprise that polls show a large majority of New Zealanders don’t support the Government’s Three Waters reforms – probably largely due to the perception that they are a race-based reform giving large elements of control to unelected iwi.
Should the republican movement pursue “minimalist republicanism” or “Treaty republicanism”?
If New Zealand moves to a republic, there are many elements of a new constitution that might be easily agreed upon. The new head of state might be given a title such as Rangatira or Ariki.
But the constitutional reforms that could go along with the transition might be more radical. Therefore, the New Zealand Republican Movement has something of a dilemma in how it pursues change.
Does it adopt a “minimalist republican” reform movement, in which basic change is advocated – simply making the current office of Governor General the new head of state, with a reformed Parliamentary appointment process? Or does it look to more widespread constitutional reform, especially that which seeks to fulfill the aspirations of those demanding a more Treaty-based political system.
The former strategy might be more successful in terms of achieving a republic. The latter is more in touch with the Zeitgeist and will help get groups such as iwi leaders, Te Pati Māori and the Greens on side. But this option also threatens to open a real can of worms.
The republican debates we had in the 1980s and 1990s are long over. Back then it was about “minimalist republicanism” – just getting rid of the monarchy. It’s now about “Treaty-based republicanism”.
Most commentators haven’t caught up with this new reality. Much of the constitutional debate over the last few days has been about whether our new head of state would be a president, elected or appointed by Parliament, and how to avoid political capture of the new role.
These are all good discussions to have. But in the end, they miss the bigger questions – which will be around the Treaty, and what role a new republic would have for Māori, and how we embody a multi-ethnic society in constitutional arrangements.
There has been a sense in which New Zealand has been sleepwalking towards a republic, or that we are already a “de facto republic”. Many feel that a final shift to make a republic official is just a matter of launching a new campaign, referendum, or piece of legislation. But the recent Māori political and constitutional renaissance changes all of that. Republicans will have to grapple with demands for more than just a change of a law to replace the King with the Governor General.
For a good illustration of this change, it’s worth noting that in 2017 Te Pati Māori strongly opposed New Zealand becoming a republic but, in 2022, they are leading the charge. This year they have a new policy: “Te Pāti Māori are calling to remove the British royal family as head of state, and move Aotearoa to a Te Tiriti o Waitangi based nation.” And as part of this, they want bigger republican changes, including a Māori Parliament which would operate alongside the present one.
Will this version of republicanism be a goer? Probably not for quite a while yet.
Dr Bryce Edwards is Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project.
Monday, September 19, 2022
Sunday, September 18, 2022
Saturday, September 17, 2022
Tuesday, September 13, 2022
Monday, September 12, 2022
Thursday, September 8, 2022
Tuesday, September 6, 2022
Sunday, September 4, 2022
"Paid to promote virtues of unemployment". Review of the "Beneficiary's Office" by David Farrar. October 16 2010
Paid to promote virtues of unemployment
Keeping Stock alerted me to this story in the Dom Post:
An out-of-work artist is setting up a taxpayer-funded “beneficiaries’ office” in downtown Wellington to promote the virtues of being unemployed.
Yes – taxpayer funded.
He is part of a $53,000 performance art installation series paid for by Creative New Zealand and Wellington City Council.
Creative NZ is defending its decision to provide a $40,000 grant but said last night it was unaware of the installation’s “precise content” when the grant was signed off.
Well why the fuck not? Someone should get sacked for this. Or at a minimum Chris Finlayson should take $40,000 out of their budget for next year. Art is one thing – but promoting the virtues of bludging should not qualify.
Tao Wells, 37, advocates the opportunities and benefits of unemployment and says it is unfair that long-term beneficiaries are labelled bludgers for exploiting the welfare system.
It’s unfair that I have to work 60 hour weeks to fund your fucking life style, you bludging wanker.
Wells’ installation, The Beneficiary’s Office, urges people to abandon jobs they don’t like rather than suffering eight hours of “slavery”.
“We need to work less, so we consume less. The average carbon footprint of the unemployed person is about half of that of those earning over $100,000.”
I await the Green Party insisting that this pilot be introduced nationwide – that everyone gives up their jobs to reduce carbon emissions.
Backed by five “staff”, Wells plans to promote his unemployment philosophy publicly and debate it with politicians and the gainfully employed.
Remember, we are paying for this.
He described himself as an unemployed artist with a masters degree who had been “off and on” the unemployment benefit since 1997. Wells said he was receiving welfare and admitted his benefit was at risk by him speaking out.
Late yesterday afternoon his benefit was cut off after Work and Income learned of the project.
Not just a greedy selfish bludger, but a stupid one also.
He refuses to work, but is happy to apply for grants so he can preach about why people should bludge like him. WINZ should refuse to put him back on any benefit unless he can demonstrate sustained activity seeking employment.
Wells denied his pro-unemployment stance was hypocritical when he was being paid $2000 for the project. “We should never be forced to take a job. If you’re forced to take a job it’s a punishment. If a job’s a punishment then society must be a prison.”
Listen Mr Fuckwit, you are not forced to take a job. So long as you don’t want those of us who do work to pay you a benefit, you do not need to ever work again.
Creative NZ boss Stephen Wainwright said the agency’s role was to encourage, promote and support the arts. Innovative new work, such as the Letting Space series, could act as a powerful form of social commentary and encourage debate.
Oh for fuck’s sake. They seriously have too much money. Having a layabout wanker who is illegally claiming the dole, promote dole bludging as a lifestyle choice is not innovative. Would Creative NZ give money for a tax felon to set up an office and advise people not to pay their taxes?
This just makes my blood boil. We’re borrowing $240 million a week and this is what Creative NZ thinks is a priority. Why don’t the staff responsible at Creative NZ follow the advice of Mr Wells and quit their jobs to escape the slavery of work.
Comments (199)
Login to comment or vote
Inventory2
Sorry about that MT
bhudson
Robyn,
I have no problem with you supporting Wells. Good on you for your opinion. I hope it is honestly held though because I have the proposal to test it…
We taxpayers that do not agree with Wells will stop funding his non-work. (Actually our friends at WINZ have already commenced action to take care of this for us.)
You (and any other supporters you can find – good luck) can donate a portion of your salary to support him in his campaign (that means you have to fund his living expense too.)
So if you have any integrity you can get your wallet out and start donating to Wells, because we are not prepared to.
bhudson
Hurf Durf,
Thanks for that list. I take special note of:
“He is a fan of:
Petition International Criminal Court to Investigate Israeli War Crimes in Gaza
ARREST THE POPE (official)”
No doubt Luc Hansen will be along this evening to show his support for this leader in our community.
adze
“You have all been suckered by the artist.”
So Art = trolling?
Maybe for his next “instalment” he can question Anand Satyanand’s citizenship… I’m sure there’ll be even more bites.
labrator
@john gibson
I just went outside and set a couple of tires on fire. Pollution gets people talking about the environment.
Then I crashed my car into some pedestrians and drove off. Violence gets people talking about crime.
Then I ran over a cat. Feline deaths get people talking about animal cruelty.
The ends justify the means, I’m an artist.
John Gibson
labrator – fair enough. You should put together a proposal and apply for Creative NZ funding.
bereal
john gibson
” You have all been suckered in by the artist.”
Thanks for pointing this out to all the less intellectualy endowed.
Bye the way,
Check your grammar mate, it’s not up your genius standard.
We’re all suckers except for you ?
When you describe this tosspot as an artist you demean all genuine artists
and reveal plenty about yourself.
This tosser Wells, Robyn, and yourself have got it, and we are all idiots.
Is Robyn your daughter mate.
You are both as pathetic as each other.
Thanks for explaining ,” the point of the artwork ” to us.
Where would we be without you to put us right?
Ben, i take your point but even though you are correct i gotta keep trying.
What happened to Robyn ?
J gibson will keep offering the superior/ gay side of the argument, however pathetic.
I don’t expect to hear any thing more from Robyns high horse on this matter.
But i could be wrong.
Gotta go now G’nite all.
Viking2
IV2; I had thought to suggest that he was probably a no.1 fan of the new green Mayoress in Wgtn.
Wgtn seems to have this problem and a major collection of these types.
Rex Widerstrom (3,518) Says:
October 16th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I don’t believe the majority of recipients of benefits are bludgers who don’t want to work.
I think you may well be right Rex but the system allows many to be that way, its easy and so humans being what they are take advantage of the market signals. And thats what they are. Signaling, that if you can be bothered, then there is an easy life out there if you work the system. Plenty who collect the easy money and top up doing cash jobs of all sorts. Go to any market, look at those that collect seafood for sale under the table, mow lawns for cash etc etc.
Rex;
I do believe that beneficiaries need some sort of independent advocate to ensure they’re not treated unfairly by “Paula’s lot” (and indeed they are Paula’s lot, sharing her visceral contempt for the people they’re supposed to be helping).
Which is why I despise this parasite as much as anybody above.
$53,000 would pay for a competent advocate for a year. They could work out of an existing social services or church welfare organisation. And they could do some real good, helping people receive their proper entitlement and assist them in finding work.
Here you fall into the classic trap which is also a subject posted omn GB.
Paaula’s menb are going to monitor all the yopung ones leaving school to get them working. Apart from not succeeding this is just another waste of money. The way to get people working is to allow the jobs to grow and allow those that create meaningful jobs. i.e. private enterprise to make meaningful employment decisions. I.e. allow employers to employ young people at rates of pay that are viable for the employer and the young person. $520 per week for a 16 year old trainee is not viable. Hence no jobs.
Further all that money the Govt. spends on your behalf to provide solutions that are uneconomic add to the current govt. expenditure and borrowing. That is now 13 billion for this year.
Govt. needs to get the fuck out of peoples lives and let us do what we need to.
Stuart Mackey
I do not understand people like this, and I have come across a few in my life, and they baffle me.
You can only exist on the dole (if you are honest),so what benefits and opportunities could it ever create except narrow mindedness and intellectual myopia with a unhealthy dose of poverty?
John Gibson
reid – there are lots of things I resent paying taxes for. Anything with “Treaty of Waitangi” in its title for a start. I have no issue with CreativeNZ. Art is important to our culture and identity, we don’t have the wealthy patrons that exist in other countries.
Caleb
i would suggest that 95% of people on the dole, for more than a couple of months either cant be bothered to work or are not bothered to apply themselves for their employer…. no wait, there just isnt any jobs.
Caleb
one off, 6 month emergency unemployment benefit.
2 year dpb, first child only.
work and income to place every sickness beneficiary in paid work.
no wff.
Viking2
Some truths to the debate.
NZ is currently enjoying some of its best ever selling conditions, high prices for products abound. The Govt. is running a 13 billion dollar deficit and despite all that stimulus NZ has a standstill growth rate.
Control does not foster nor create anything. Borowing on that scale causes the profit from our sales to be cleaned out.
What will the Govt have to do next?
Print money is all that is left.
Oh but wait. We could provide incentives. Lots of little no cost incentives. People act to make gains and avoid losses.
You know you are in trouble when the most cheerful thing the Finance Minister can think of to say about the economy is that people are no longer drawing down equity in their houses to spend up large.
Bill English highlighted the multi-billion-dollar turnaround from net equity withdrawal during the housing boom back to the more normal net equity injection, when briefing journalists on the release of the Government’s accounts for the 2009/10 financial year.
The change represents about a 10 per cent reduction in households’ spending power, at a time when incomes are flatlining.
It helps explain why figures out yesterday continue to show retail spending and the housing market are going sideways.
It represents a new realism on the part of households, English says, and a step towards “rebalancing” the economy towards less borrowing and more saving, less consumption and more investment in productive assets, less importing and more exporting.
But there is no joy in it for businesses or for their employees.
We won’t know for sure until December, but there is a decent chance the economy did not grow at all over the past six months.
It is troubling if that is the best we can do at a time when the stimulus from the Government is at its peak, interest rates are as low as they are going to go, and export prices close to all-time highs.
We are a quarter of the way into a financial year in which the Government expects to run a cash deficit of $13 billion (up from $9 billion last year).
Likewise the average mortgage rate people are paying is as low as it is expected to go in this cycle.
And world prices for a basket of New Zealand export commodities are just 1 per cent off their all-time high last May, boosting farm incomes. The net effect is a joyless, jobless phase of the recovery, where progress is measured by the fact that we have gone from being up to our nostrils in debt to merely up to our necks.
By Brian Fallow | Email Brian
Inventory2
@ Viking2 – where do your words end and Brian Fallow’s words begin?
Viking2
Sorry IV2; Didn’t have a chance to fix that.
Fallow from here.
You know you are in trouble when the most cheerful thing the Finance Minister can think of to say about the economy is that people are
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=10680671
Here is some more thoughts that rightly point out the Labour can smell blood.
The Treasury has had to keep revising downwards its economic growth forecasts and – worryingly for the Government – its tax revenue projections. English warned this week that running large Budget deficits to support New Zealanders through the “adjustment process” could not go on forever. To get back into surplus, the Government would have to tighten its spending. Falling tax revenue will force spending to be tightened even further. Before you can say John Maynard Keynes, the economy is on a downwards spiral.
However, such has been the focus on the ructions within Act, the handling of Paul Henry’s faux pas and Carter’s kamikaze raids on his old party that the sluggish state of the economy has been forced to take a back seat.
But not for much longer. Labour sees the debate over economic management starting to shift in its favour. While the international economy remains in flux, the time when National could also lay blame for the domestic economic downturn at Labour’s door is fast receding.
John Key’s prediction that the recovery would be “reasonably aggressive” has backfired. National is starting to look like it does not have the answers. English’s talk of “rebalancing” may be sound economic theory. But the average punter has little interest in that. English is consequently sounding out of touch. National is starting to look very vulnerable.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=144&objectid=10680890
Viking2
Aldous Huxley once lamented: ”The failure of man to not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”
And never was history, financial history particularly, more important.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/parity-starts-to-pale-as-dark-clouds-gather-and-bigger-battles-loom-20101015-16njx.html
SJP
My last comment is still awaiting moderation… maybe you considered it offensive? I didn’t realise I was crossing the line.
Hmmm. Just thinking about it, if anyone could think of any successful contemporary New Zealand film-makers/actors/artists/musicians who have never been on the dole, could they please list them? I personally don’t know of any.
Luc Hansen
Since I’ve never met an invitation I didn’t like (Hat tip to Sean Plunket) I feel compelled to reply to bhudson
Naturally, I would support an application to the ICC to have Israel indicted for war crimes. Israel is a rogue state that has a contemptuous attitude to international law. But indicting the Pope just seems a waste of energy, unless it led to a dismantling of the Vatican statelet. Now that would be a worthwhile project!
And guys, we really should learn to value diversity, including those who do not wish to work in our system. There is nothing omnipotent about the capitalist system and one never knows what a creative can come up with. People do get too bound up in day to day living and miss the big picture, like, for example, the fact that one day capitalism will be as much a relic of history as, say, fuedalism.
big bruv
“And guys, we really should learn to value diversity, including those who do not wish to work in our system. ”
Sure, but do not fucking well expect me to pay for this piece of shit.
bhudson
Luc,
And don’t forget socialism while you’re at it (USSR and it’s eastern bloc friends were socialists on their glorious path to communism – only they found the road was a dead end)
Inventory2
Agreed Big Bruv; Tao Wells is welcome to opt out of the conventional life, and live off his wits. But when people the likes of Wells, Phillip Ure etc choose to opt out AND expect their lifestyle to be funded by MY taxes, I bristle. A civilsed society has an obligation to lokk after its vulnerable, i.e. those who CANNOT look after themselves. Wells, Ure and many like them are perfectly capable of working, but they have made a conscious decision not to.
Hurf Durf
They don’t mind sucking from the teat of our system though, do they? Your attitude reminds me of the the official in this story here. Classic Cloward-Piven.
Luc Hansen
No, no, big bruv, that’s part of our responsibility, to pay for it.
It’s just the right thing to do!
bhudson, when I say one day, I mean it in the same sense as how long ago fuedalism ended. To think there won’t one day be a completely new economic model is just silly. But we won’t be around to see it, don’t you worry.
big bruv
Luc
Now I know you are trolling, even you do not believe that we should fund parasites.
Luc Hansen
Cloward-Piven
Hurf, how do you find out such things? I had never heard of Cloward-Piven. Gareth Morgan supports this idea.
But it’s a bit like this thought I had last night, when I heard that the Pentagon has ordered a halt to enforcing DADT (until the appeal is heard?).
My though was all gays and friends of gays in the military should come out in this period of hiatus, it should be in the tens of thousands, at a minimum, and challenge the Pentagon to dismiss them all.
That would be one army emasculated for a while!
Luc Hansen
big bruv, I have always believed that we should support those who don’t want to work in the conventional sense to stay out of our way, and not to burgle us, not to assault us, and work out their own way of finding fulfillment.
It’s not necessarily at our expense. It could be to our benefit. When Einstein did the maths for his Theory of Relativity, he was unemployed, dependent on his wife and supporters.
They are not parasites. I am not trolling. But I may have my tongue in my cheek at times…
Hurf Durf
Sup Puke.
I dunno how you managed to square that particular circle, though I like how you’ve managed to put yourself in a position whereby you support the Republican Party over the Obama Administration. Now that’s what I call Twilight Zone!
Again, here comes the anti-Western Puke Hansen who’d rather have our strategic rivals run rampant coming out of the gutter. Unlike Obama, you never fail to deliver.
bhudson
Luc,
Paying people not to hurt you or not to rob you is called taxation – gangs do it.
I don’t disagree we will have a different economic system some hundreds of years in the future. I was just making sure you weren’t going to try to push socialism as that option.
The reactions to Wells show you are in a minority when it comes to thinking we should embrace those who don’t want to work. I’d suggest he’d find few friends amongst the workers in the pubs of Porirua, Papatoetoe and Patea at he moment. It’s not only the middle class that would be disgusted by his attitude. As you are well aware Luc, lower income workers pay tax too. And they don’t like the idea of someone taking the piss out of them by sponging off the money that was theirs and which they could have made good use of
James Butler
When people say this, they’re usually thinking of renaissance masters being funded by the Doge of Venice or whoever to paint chapel ceilings… but up until very recent times a sovereign or feudal lord was the embodiment of the state. When a duke collected rents and tributes and spent some of it on art, who’s to say if he was acting as a private patron or state funding?
Inventory2
John Gibson said
Jenny Gibbs? Julian Robertson? I rest my case!
redqueen
James, the difference is, a feudal lord wasn’t thinking, ‘I want to expand the realm of art, based on social objectives, which are determined by my ideological beliefs’. The closest thing a feudal lord would have is the desire to awe his subjects, in the case of grand art projects, and that requires an actual like on the part of people (for otherwise they’d hardly be in awe). Alternatively, he might be enjoying himself. In either case, twoddle about ‘expanding the realm of art’ was hardly on his mind, in either case. Nor was encouraging people to do less work. This is just a load of rubbish that I’m being forced to pay for and that is iniquitous.
Oswald Bastable
The fucker should be flogged and sent to the workhouse- as should anyone who supports or makes excuses for him!
artdick
Actually, redqueen, speaking strictly as an art historian, “expand(ing) the realm of art, based on social objectives, determined by… ideological beliefs” describes the behavior of some feudal patrons perfectly. And, of course, it describes much, if not most, of the patronage during the Renaissance, (including the famous Medici family.) Unless patronage came from the church, of course – Caravaggio and Bernini both clocked in for them. Though the line between Working for the Church and Working for the State was pretty damn fine in those days. As it was in Ancient Greece, or Ancient Rome. In fact, much of what we study as “great sculpture” from some other time is little more than well executed advertising (really, Caesar Augustus, how many busts of your head do you REALLY need?) The point is, there is always a social goal to the funding of art. Some nobler than others.
Though I’m sure you weren’t really intending to suggest that feudal fiefdoms were preferable to Creative New Zealand…
snowy
I’ve a brother in london and another in Dubai.
I’m moving to Singapore next month.
I love hunting and fishing etc in nz but shit like this just doesn’t make it worth it.
If you’re under 40 and earning under 150k in nz then you are a failure.
ben
Luc Hansen
unless it led to a dismantling of the Vatican statelet. Now that would be a worthwhile project!
Hear hear!
And guys, we really should learn to value diversity, including those who do not wish to work in our system.
Hey I’m all for diversity when those choosing to be diverse, bless them, pay their own bills like the rest of us. Nobody has the right to complain about somebody choosing to be 6 kinds of useless PROVIDED that person doesn’t take advantage of the rest of us in doing so. Precisely because that’s what’s happening here, and precisely because the government a) is aiding and abetting b) is openly approving and c) throws those of us with productive jobs in prison when we don’t hold up our end of the bargain and pay our taxes, then we get a bit hacked off seeing such an easy ride being bought with our money. It’s not nice, actually Luc.
ben
Luc Hansen
No, no, big bruv, that’s part of our responsibility, to pay for it.
It’s just the right thing to do!
Er, why? Culture has existed far longer than subsidies. Culture doesn’t need subsidy. The additional diversity subsidies buys is necessarily the diversity nobody was willing to pay for out of their own pocket i.e. value destroying. The cost is to reallocate resources out of productive uses (from things people were willing to pay to use) to things that costs more than it produces in value in the eyes of purchasers. New Zealand is made poorer for this.
hubbers
Are we still really borrowing $240 million a week? Does anyone else think this is irresponsible?
ciaron
When Einstein did the maths for his Theory of Relativity, he was unemployed, dependent on his wife and supporters.
A shining example of the right way to do it. He convinced others to privately support him, he didn’t get a taxpayer handout.
jackp
Hubbers, yes. For a country of only 4.2 million, it isn’t too hard to monitor creeps like Wells and, there are computers that are suppose to make administration more accurate and easier. He’s a burden on society and to create the Benefits of unemployment isn’t creating anything. It’s not art which if he profoundly believes so, then he isn’t an artist only masquerading as one for the benefit to sleep in. He should be thrown in jail for fraud and live off the taxpayer’s dollar all he wants, just don’t bend over.
Pita
I’m not sure that this is the type of debate that either Wells or Creative NZ had intended to encourage…but the project is richly ironic and, if that is what the “artist” intended, he deserves every penny.
IHStewart
Friend of mine in Ireland of all places just sent me this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAOIl5GGaOk&feature=related
Hope I haven’t ruined anyones morning.
black paul
hubbers said “Are we still really borrowing $240 million a week? Does anyone else think this is irresponsible?”
No we aren’t, only David and Bill English still pretend this is the case. And yes, it IS irresponsible of them.
black paul
IHStewart this one probably better hints at a way to begin to understand what is happening in this work. I know most of the commenters here will never get it (or never admit that they get it) but plenty of readers might. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X8Q0ykLbxE
dime
How bout we all put 20 bucks into a fund and pay some unemployed guy to walk into this dudes office and beat the absolute fuck out of him.
Call it performance art, give it a catchy name.
erentz
DPF: “It’s unfair that I have to work 60 hour weeks to fund your fucking life style, you bludging wanker.”
You’re usually quite good with numbers and analysis, what happened in this case? Clearly your 60 hours worth of income does not all go to funding this one guy. Maybe a second of it, if even that. (Not defending the guy, just saying this type of overly emotional response to these bludgers doesn’t help rational debate.)
ciaron
Well, when a long term unemployed person turns around and says “I’m not being hypocritical, but I think y’all should pay me to tell everyone to go on the dole if they don’t like their jobs”, then rational debate has long since left the building.
IHStewart
@black paul I think most of the commenters fully understand what is happening here be they right centre or left, this guy has been looked after all his life by the state and his attitude towards us as the link you provide is clearly ” get fucked “. The Dominion Post said in the article he has a master’s degree. When I was a student I worked in a food distribution warehouse the guys I worked with put me through university and they did the same for this clown. His thanks for that is to say get fucked I am not getting a job not paying taxes I am going to continue to live of your efforts. I sure as hell don’t get your comment. If I have misunderstood you I apologise in advance.
Jad
I am amazed at the lack of reason on this blog. There is a lot of emotion, not much actual thought or insight.
Tao Wells is offering you an opportunity to reflect. Yet much of these comments are bland reflections.
If one researches who funded the original massive modernisation of the USA it was business. It was not the poor. Did the poor bludge off the rich here? No it was the rich that used this modernisatiion to get richer.
All a poor person needs is shelter and food. Once this would have come via self sufficiency. We now live in a system that is based around monetary acquisition. Our entire paradigm is based on money. It defines our lives in every respect. We have no choice about this. Such a system is slavery plain and simple. The legal system is nothing more than a bully.
Now lets look at handouts. What happens when you are a Corporation and you have a financial crisis? Thats right, you get bailed out.
So its OK to be a badly managed business and get tax payers to bail you out???? Like Air New Zealand???
Who caused the entire world to fall to its knees? Was it the dole bludgers?
YOU POSTERS REALLY NEED TO WAKE UP TO THE REAL SCAM.
You put your faith and emotional support to a system that is corrupt to the core. In fact you go research who you are really working for. NOT NEW ZEALAND I can assure you. We are all stock to the world bankers. We all have a worth and a stock number. And our worth is traded. Look into who invented our monetary system. Research the Rothchids for a start. We are all being used like cattle. Are you ready he cold hard facts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F4IGwuKdUQ
You can play the game like a perfect tax payer all your life, and one day they could take it all from you.
Looks whats happening in the US, people are loosing their homes all over.
We all deserve to be Free Men/Women on the land under the eyes of God not some artificial God Economy.
We have now been indoctrinated into a corporate economic model. What a bunch of suckers, trying to defend a corrupt system of slavery!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzrfJbbj_o
WHAT IS THE PRICE FOR THOSE OBSESSED WITH “BIGGER AND BETTER”? A toxic environment. Polluted water and air.
Considering that New Zealand is to a large part kept functioning by a work force of volunteers getting no pay for their work, we must admit that payed employment is not the answer to a functioning nation.
To suggest that we have a right not to work and question why we do work is good.
Think beyond yourself.
jackp
I like what bees do. If the drones are no longer needed, they sting them and throw them out of the nest. With humans, the drones
are guarded and they copulate and spawn more drones. We’re suppose to be intelligent?
Kris K
HYPOCRISY FROM OUR BLOG HOST???
DPF said:
And yet when Redbaiter simply quotes you back in his 1:46 pm comment yesterday:
You give him demerits. How does that work?!
So it’s alright for you to call someone a “fuckwit”, but if someone else does you issue demerits – and worse yet, you give someone demerits for simply quoting you back to yourself. What utter hypocrisy, DPF!
I think you need to sort your act out.
I believe you need to give an apology to Redbaiter, remove any demerits you have given him for any use of expletives which you yourself are guilty of, and MOST CERTAINLY remove demerits for simply quoting you back to yourself.
Perhaps if you don’t want any of the commenters here to accuse individuals of being a “fuckwit” (your words), then you need to set an example and clean your own language up.
I expect MUCH better from you, David.
Mark
Not only should this clown have his dole cut off which I beleive happened on Friday. MSD should seek repayment of past payments to him. In addition the idiots responsible for giving a $40k grant and not checking what it was being used for should be fired and repayment of that Grant Should also be sought.
It is dickheads like this that mean those who have genuine hardship and need the dole while they find another job will be vilified as bludgers.
centreforward
If he wants to promote the benefits of bludging through art then fine – but not at taxpayer expense. Let him support himself. Looking forward to budget cuts at creative nz and the city council trimming arts funding. Talk about sending the wrong signals!
bereal
And now we have the huge intellect of one, ‘Jad’ mincing onto the stage.
He has cornered the market on thought and insight, in his own mind.
He is doing mankind the favour of explaining where we are all going wrong.
Our legal system is a bully.
Our entire paradigm is slavery.
The system is corrupt.
We are all really all working for the Rothcids
Jad alerts us all to the,” real scam.”
We must admit that payed employment is not the answer.
We are all a bunch of suckers, trying to defend a corrupt system of slavery.
Jad, what is the answer to all these problems ?
You have, in your treatise, alerted us all to these great truths but you forgot to give us the answers.
Maybe i could suggest a couple for you.
Grow up.
Get a job.
Stop bludging of your fellow man.
Fuck off.
black paul
Kris K, That was Redbaited making a wee joke. Yes it does happen.
IHStewart, the only point I was drawing attention to in that video was that everyone here is focused on this one guy and what he’s costing us (couple of cents a week each if that) rather than examining in any depth the work itself. In some cases I think there are commenters here who genuinely don’t go any further than thinking “bludger, give me back my two cents”. In other cases though I think some commenters here are quite aware of the points the artist is raising but are very uncomfortable with confronting them head on and find it easier to pretend there is nothing in it beyond the personal, the bludging, the individual example. DPF probably falls into this category.
Manolo
“we must admit that payed (sic) employment is not the answer to a functioning nation.”
Outstanding! Are you advocating we go the way of Somalia or Sudan?
bereal
Manolo
Couldn’t get the edit to work.
i wanted to add to both Rothchids and payed.
I wonder where this genius Jad picked up his great insights, his high skool teecher
or maybe some lecturer at Waikato if he is old enough to have been there yet.
Lets hope he can give us a few more laughs soon. But i doubt it, i suspect he fired his big
guns and that was all he had. Poor mite.
Kris K
black paul 2:34 pm,
I stand corrected – I thought it was DPF addressing Red, “[30 demerits for “fuckwit”- Redbaiter]”, as opposed to Red having a dig at DPF for his use of ‘that’ word as a descriptor of someone.
But I stand by the fact that DPF dishes out demerits for commenters calling, say, a politician a “fuckwit”, but then he himself calls Tao Wells a “fuckwit”. It’s still a hypocritical stance IMHO.
bereal
Second thoughts, Jad is probably a lecturer at Waikato himself.
Robinson 666
You might as well get used to being on the dole, unemployment just keeps going up up up!
Avalon
Jad(1) Says:
October 17th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“To suggest that we have a right not to work and question why we do work is good.”
You can suggest all you like
I personally do not work, by choice, and am perfectly happy with that
choice. In making it, myself and my husband make other choices about who
does work to bring in income (him) and who manages that income (me) so
that we can afford to make that choice.
What we do not do, is steal money from the taxpayers to fund that choice, then steal more money to sit on our arses being a pair of arty-farty ponces creating an even poncier “art installation” sneering down our noses at the poor deluded fools we just stole from.
This twat has the people of New Zealand working their butts off to fund his sitting around being a smug wanker. How is he not indulging in his own world of slavery where he is the slave owner and we are his slaves? And you think this is OK becuase there are evil corporations who also stole from the taxpayer?
I’m pretty damn sure I’m NOT the deluded one here. You should have learned at a relatively young age that two wrongs don’t make a right.
bhudson
Jad – your entire posted comment was copied and pasted from an activist brochure. Why don’t you try to add some depth to the superficial (and supercilious) claims you make.
You could start with the claim that the poor were able to feed & shelter themselves because they were self-sufficient but are now beholden to the man’s cash. The poor have never been self-sufficient. Even when they farmed and grew food and built there own shacks, they did so on the man’s land as fuedal vassals. Land is capital, cash is capital. They relied upon the man’s capital (=cash)
You can then move on from there to actually try and justify the rest of your twaddle.
Jad IS Zhumao
h n
Since my previous two comments were held up in moderation for a day… I’m interested in commenters views on these things :
1) Why do so many of you have such strong opinions on work most have you have never seen? Do you have that much faith in Dominion Post journalists?
2) For those of you who do believe in some public funding of the arts (including NZSO and NZonAir) – do you think funding should be based on whether or not you agree with artist’s political views? If so, who should do the deciding?
3) Organising vigilante attacks on recipients you don’t approve of – do you do the same for TV programs and music videos you don’t like who receive NZ-on-Air funding? Or is just people who can’t afford security guards?
4) It’s all very well to be high and mighty about not being a “bludger”, but how many of you could actually live on the unemployment benefit for any considerable period of time? Would you still do the jobs you are doing now if you were only paid the rate of the dole?
5) Is “working hard” always a good thing? Even if your job contributes nothing to society? What about if your work is detrimental to society?
black paul
Kris K, I agree.
bhudson
h n,
In turn:
1. We don’t trust the Dompost journos’ intelligence but we do trust the paper to record and report quotes. There were enough quotes from Wells to tell the story.
2. Funding should be based on govt policy (as per cnz’s webste). Govt policy is that people on the dole should be seeking work. Govt policy on funding should be consistent with govt policy on the topic at hand. (if the artist wants to convey a contradictory message they are free to do so with thee own money.)
3. Don’t sook – grow up. The comments were people registering displeasure. If you really think they meant it, you need some different drugs or (preferably) better education
4. The jobs that many of us do now pay more than the dole because they provide value to the employer. Introductory economics would tell you that if the employer didn’t pay the labour would go elsewhere where their skills and value would be rewarded. (you will find a book in the public library – free too). This strawman is as ridiculous as “would more people seek to g on the dole if it paid 10X the average wage?”
5. i) yes, ii) according to who – all jobs contribute else no one would be using the product or service, iii) (again, according to who?) by the answer is get another job
Your comment were fatuous to put it nicely. Responded (partly) in kind
bereal
And now ladies and gentlemen another huge intellect,’ h n’ takes the stage.
@4.24
He is interested in ‘commenters views’
the problem he has is that the statements he makes are such absolute confused tripe
and garbage they deserve only derision.
The tosser, Tao Wells has called in his two flatmates, Jad and h n for support.
Kindred spirits
Robyn @5.49 or John gibson @ 2.11 may oblige with comments.
Note that all these tossers have the same solution to their perceived ills of the world,
stop working.
Now there is a very convienient solution for useless bludgers.
isnt it wonderfull to sit on your arse your whole life and work on how you can
justify your indolence, and abuse wealth producers who are stupid enough to accomodate you.
Jeez, i hope these tossers are not capable of breeding.
Imagine having Tao Wells as your father.
h n
> 1. We don’t trust the Dompost journos’ intelligence but we do trust the paper to record and report quotes. There were enough quotes from Wells to tell the story.
Most of his quotes were outlining his political views. There was very little describing the artwork.
> 2. Funding should be based on govt policy (as per cnz’s webste). Govt policy is that people on the dole should be seeking work. Govt policy on funding should be consistent with govt policy on the topic at hand. (if the artist wants to convey a contradictory message they are free to do so with thee own money.)
I’m not sure which part of the website you’re referring to here. I’m pretty sure CNZ has never run a soviet-style arts funding programme. You could probably count the number of CNZ recipients who have been “consistent with govt policy” on one hand.
I suspect your problem is you consider Tao to be advocating illegal activity. But we’ve always funded theatre and TV programmes where fictional characters have done this. Perhaps Tao Wells is a fictional character. Have you never seen Borat?
>3. Don’t sook – grow up. The comments were people registering displeasure. If you really think they meant it, you need some different drugs or (preferably) better education
I’m not part of the artwork so no need to sook. I’ll wait to the end of the exhibition to see if they were serious. Yes I am a victim of all three stages of NZ’s state education system. What drugs to do you reccommend?
>4. The jobs that many of us do now pay more than the dole because they provide value to the employer. Introductory economics would tell you that if the employer didn’t pay the labour would go elsewhere where their skills and value would be rewarded. (you will find a book in the public library – free too). This strawman is as ridiculous as “would more people seek to g on the dole if it paid 10X the average wage?”
My point was that most people in paid employment are doing so for reasons other than not being a “bludger”.
I’ve read a number of interesting economics books from the public library. It’s wonderful to live in a society where the state funds ideas that are inconsistent with government policy.
> 5. i) yes, ii) according to who – all jobs contribute else no one would be using the product or service, iii) (again, according to who?) by the answer is get another job
So P dealers and hitmen are better for society than beneficeries?
h n
Hi bereal! I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve never met Tao Wells and am in fulltime employment. I’ll keep you posted on my reproductive status.
Viking2
4) It’s all very well to be high and mighty about not being a “bludger”, but how many of you could actually live on the unemployment benefit for any considerable period of time? Would you still do the jobs you are doing now if you were only paid the rate of the dole?
Well first answer is. who in their right mind wants to? Always money to be made if you get up and look for it.
Second is; some of it yes, because its what my passion is about. Many many people have hobbies that are driven by their passion. One could say they do that for less the the unemployment benefit. Without passion for your work, work is dull. Go find something you like.
5) Is “working hard” always a good thing? Even if your job contributes nothing to society? What about if your work is detrimental to society?
first answer; yes it is. Its good for the body and soul. whether it satisfies your needs or someone else’s is a different question.
second answer; define how you would define detrimental. Its like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. So I can consider someones work detrimental to society but you might not. Until you can give a clear judgment on that which all agree upon, then we don’t know the answer.
big bruv
“Yes I am a victim of all three stages of NZ’s state education system. What drugs to do you reccommend (sic)?”
Little lead ones, administered intravenously by way of .22 rifle
Phylis Johnson
Excuse my “sooking,” big bruv, but can we please be a little more cautious with the death threats? I really do think that if we’re going to take a general position that Wells’ work is capable of being an actual offense by virtue of his saying something offensive, then we might consider comments like that in the same breath.
Incidentally, I can think of one possible definition of “detrimental” – that the production of the work causes physical harm, in its being made. Off the top of my head, that would include everything made by:
Nike
Bendon
Coca Cola
Bill Blass
Calvin Klein
Converse
Dillard’s Saks
Hasbro
Kenneth Cole Vans
and, Kohl’s
Arguably, any work done for any of these companies contributes directly to acts of physical harm upon other humans.
dad4justice
Are you big blouse, oh twisted one, promoting shooting people in cold blood. What kind of criminal creeps you got on this blog Farrar?
bhudson
h n,
> 1. … “Most of his quotes were outlining his political views. There was very little describing the artwork.”
His political views and artwork (shouldn’t that be artnotwork?) are intertwined in this instance at least. In any case, people were responding to his views (which, as you agree, he had publicly expressed.)
> 2. … “I’m not sure which part of the website you’re referring to here. I’m pretty sure CNZ has never run a soviet-style arts funding programme. You could probably count the number of CNZ recipients who have been “consistent with govt policy” on one hand.
I suspect your problem is you consider Tao to be advocating illegal activity. But we’ve always funded theatre and TV programmes where fictional characters have done this. Perhaps Tao Wells is a fictional character. Have you never seen Borat?”
If you actually look at the website you will find it – information about CNZ. (Good thing they don’t run a soviet system – while it might be more to yours & Wells’ political leanings, they didn’t take too kindly to people not participating.)
I have no “problem” – CNZ does. CNZ is reponsible for delivering services in line with govt policy (their statement, not exact words.) In this instance they have funded something that is contra to govt policy. I’m sure they will have a “please explain” to deal with tomorrow.
Fictional – I’m sure Tao Wells is beginning to wish he was.
To my knowledge Borat has sponged no money from NZ taxpayers. I have seen him – didn’t think he was that funny, but it was mildly diverting. At least he was working though.
>3. .. “I’m not part of the artwork so no need to sook. I’ll wait to the end of the exhibition to see if they were serious. Yes I am a victim of all three stages of NZ’s state education system. What drugs to do you reccommend?”
The ones you are on seem to be having some effect. Perhaps you could find some that might open your mind and allow clarity of thought (basically the opposite of whatever you are taking at the moment.)
It is good to know you participated in all three stages of the state education system. You would seem to be a living example of why National Standards are needed so desperately. It is a shame they were not in place when you were. (The same could probably said for National Service too.)
>4. … “My point was that most people in paid employment are doing so for reasons other than not being a “bludger”.
I’ve read a number of interesting economics books from the public library. It’s wonderful to live in a society where the state funds ideas that are inconsistent with government policy.”
I’m glad you are still putting that taxpayer funded state education to good use. Possibly you could broaden your book selection a little. The ones without pictures generally offer a greater depth of information.
The state funds a broad range of material so that we can sort the wheat from the chaff.
> 5. … So P dealers and hitmen are better for society than beneficeries?
As I noted above fatuous questions. So I should have expected such as your response.
You questions were about what one should accept. My response was that if you were in a job that is detrimental to society, you should get out of it. The point before that was a question as to who determines what is beneficial/detrimental. The P example is self-evident (unless you are a fan of culling the population through illegal drugs h n)
Using your fatuous example, you shouldn’t get into it in the first place! It isn’t exactly something you just stumble into is it? “OMG, I’m selling sherbert – its actually P. LOL”
Twat.
big bruv
“What kind of criminal creeps you got on this blog Farrar?”
Good question D4J…..BTW, how is your battle going with the justice system?, still have those criminal convictions against your name do you?
dad4justice
You are gutless anal pus big blouse.
John Gibson
Iventory2 – “Jenny Gibbs? Julian Robertson? I rest my case!” – yes,yes but even their ability to fund institutions and artists is trivial in comparison to wealthy in countries like the U.S. We will always need public funding of the arts.
big bruv
” We will always need public funding of the arts.”
Why?
Anything “arty” that needs public funding is obviously rubbish, I fail to see why I should fund snobbery and out and out wankery for the “elite”.
bereal
The reason why ? big bruv is simple.
John Gibson thinks he is an artist.
its as elementary and as self serving as that.
Inventory2
Of course, Helen Clark kept in good with the artists to ensure that she would always have a good supply of paintings to sign and pass off as her own work
John Ansell
I know a guy with a stellar intellect who very sincerely believed that he should be paid by the state to stay home and write a book.
And so he went on the dole and wrote the book.
And when he finished the book, his next attempt to secure state funding was to try to get elected as a member of Parliament.
For Labour, of course.
(He lost.)
Chowders
Very entertaining to see all the rednecks getting hot under the collar. Clearly the Fred Dagg adage still rings true for your average NZ rednecker – “Ya don’t know how lucky you are.”
Jad
Yes you are defending the indefensible. A corrupt corporate monetary system. A ponzi scheme.
You believe that the disease symptom is something to be “cured”?
You have been lied to and now you try to defend the lie?
One suggested I get a job and “fuck off”. Fascinating.
When prejudice leads we are guaranteed of uninformed comment.
The unanimity of bias passes for objectivity.
You think by working an “honest job” you are doing your “fair share”?
You think people are getting a “free ride” getting a benefit?
How much of your tax dollars do you see? What percentage directly benefits you?
Are you concerned about this too?
Some work 60 hour weeks some work 20 hour weeks. Both can sustain a living, but one is paying more tax. So the one working less is what? Bludging off the other?
How long does one need to work before they may be entitled to a benefit? Their whole life?
What is the difference if one receive a benefit before or after they work in a “steady job”.
Someone works their whole life and dies before they get a pension. Surely their son or daughter would have every right to claim that pension for a time, are they a bludger? Or claiming an inheritance in fact.
Who owns your money? You?
The suggest one has the right NOT TO WORK is just that. It is not necessarily suggesting that one would NEVER WORK.
If every one has the opportunity NOT TO WORK, then such is fare. Whats more it is a God send. Surely anyone can see that.
Surely we would all be better off if we chose to work because it enriched our lives as much as payed for it.
Our paradigm is so limited by our addiction to money.
So Tao Wells is (was) on the benefit, in a year or two he might be earning more money and paying more tax than all of you.
If it takes him a meager unemployment benefit to devise a plan to amass a fortune, surely a meager benefit is a small price to pay.
NZ benefits from having the Unemployment benefit.
Someone asked me what the answer to the corruption of the financial markets is, Its very simple.
Stop buying products which are short lived or loved and not essential.
Start growing your own food and taking true responsibility for your life.
Install solar power and get off the grid.
Irrelevant corporations will go bankrupt and pollution will lessen.
BEWARE
When prejudice leads the blind follow.
The unanimity of bias that passes for objectivity is the issue here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZTrY3TQpzw
Nomestradamus
Jad:
Are you friends with another nutcase, Jastowns, who used to pollute Kiwiblog threads?
The words “was” and “might” are probably not well-chosen when it comes to Tao Wells.
Now, Jad, here is a simple question I’d like you to comment on.
You say it’s a meagre benefit (note the correct spelling) and a small price to pay. So – here’s the question – why don’t you dip into your own pockets and donate to what you see as a worthy cause? Why should other taxpayers (through Creative NZ) be forced to fund such a waste of space?
And as for your small-price-to-pay argument, let me introduce you to another undeserving case:
That comment was made on 29 July 2009. Here we are 16 months later, and still no sign of the promised relief for New Zealand taxpayers. Guess that
copy-and-pastewaste-of-space service didn’t amount to much then. Or would you still argue it’s a small price to pay, Jad?bhudson
Jad,
You are prejudiced against business. And you also expect the blind to follow you (I can tell that from reading the nonsense above.)
You also failed to add any depth of reasoning or logic to your claims (as you were challenged to do earlier.)
Of course people have a right not to work. No one has denied that. But if they exercise that right, we have an equal right not to fund them. Translated for your benefit – If you choose not to work, you can sustain yourself. No dole. Should be right up your alley, given your desire to the return to the utopia of self-sufficiency (which was still sponging land off the man,)
Hypocrite.
bro
not sure yall ‘get it’ [via not seeing tao’s levels]. yall sound like humour-less bullies
Clint Heine
I hope that all of you go visit this bludger and let him know (nicely) what sort of scumbag he is.
h n
>To my knowledge Borat has sponged no money from NZ taxpayers. I have seen him – didn’t think he was that funny, but it was mildly diverting. At least he was working though.
No we have the British taxpayer to thank for this one, despite it not being British government policy to throw Jews down wells. You worked out he was a fictional character interacting with real people didn’t you?
>> 5. … So P dealers and hitmen are better for society than beneficeries?
>As I noted above fatuous questions. So I should have expected such as your response.
>You questions were about what one should accept. My response was that if you were in a job that is detrimental to society, you should get out of it. The point before that was a question as to who determines what is beneficial/detrimental. The P example is self-evident (unless you are a fan of culling the population through illegal drugs h n)
>Using your fatuous example, you shouldn’t get into it in the first place! It isn’t exactly something you just stumble into is it? “OMG, I’m selling sherbert – its actually P. LOL”
I’m obviously not talking about myself here – I’m happily employed. However a lot of people in our society are in the position of having few sellable skills, and becoming a P entrepreneur is one of the few available methods to escape the poverty trap.
To use a less extreme example, I know of many people in this time of recession who have only been able to get telemarketing jobs in their first few months of unemployment. Society would be better off if they stayed unemployed. Maybe you are more charitable than me but when my game of mahjong is interrupted by people attempting to sell me crap I don’t think “gee what a lovely hard-working person. I’m glad they came to work today instead of volunteering at their local recycling centre or making some mind-blowing art”.
People on the dole who refuse to sell P or become telemarketers exhibit a kind of quiet heroism. Society currently condemns these people as bludgers but hopefully Tao’s PR company will change this perception.
bhudson
“You worked out he was a fictional character interacting with real people didn’t you?”
No, I thought he was head of the Beneficiaries Office on an overseas assignment. You mean he was some real noddy taking the piss out of people???… Oh, so I was right then.
“Maybe you are more charitable than me but when my game of mahjong is interrupted by people attempting to sell me crap I don’t think “gee what a lovely hard-working person. I’m glad they came to work today instead of volunteering at their local recycling centre or making some mind-blowing art”.”
I am no more charitable than you in this particular instance, but (unfortunately for our peace and quiet) telemarketing works. And for as long as it works businesses will employ people to do it. Those that undertake the work get rewarded for it. While I can’t and won’t comment on employment conditions offshore, NZ telemarketers are able to earn incentives through their work – They are rewarded further through adding additional value to the employer.
People on the dole (or in work for that matter) do not have to sell P. They do not exhibit heroism. What they exhibit is lawful behaviour (in that instance.) That is a fundamental expectation of society, not something that is to be celebrated with gold star achievers award
drinks-after-worker
God you’re an idiot, Farrar. Are you proud that your readers are promoting serious violence in response to something they don’t like the look of? You’re as bad as that gormless fool Kyle Chapman.
bro
feel sad that the Farrar hasnt got round to ‘moderating’ my comment.
h n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7YX1Etcu-0
Chowders
He actually picked up around $2000 for the performance, the $53,000 figure is the amount allocated for a whole year of projects from different artists.
Whatever the case I like this work, it’s pointed and funny. It does astonish me that so many people are up in arms about it, he obviously hit upon some ancestoral protestant vein.
Maggie
There are many things in this world that make me angry.
Ignorance, hunger, war. disease and want stand high on my list.
Pity some you (Farrar included) haven’t the vision to get angry about something that really matters.
bhudson
“There are many things in this world that make me angry. Ignorance…”
Maggie, after having read a number of your comments on this site I can only deduce that you are, therefore, extremely angry at yourself.
Jad
Nomestradamus
Funding for the arts is minuscule. Tao Wells is highlighting how ridiculous our society is.
He is doing you a favor and you dont want to support it. That’s your choice. But why get down on him.
I am not on a benefit. I pay tax and I am glad some of it is going to this artist. I fully support his work.
You are suggesting that I do not have a right to support him with my tax dollars, because you dont want to support him?
Gladly we have state funding still in NZ. It means not everything is compromised by corporate sponsorship.
I do not eat poison. But my tax dollars are being wasted saving peoples lives and treating people who have spent their lives eating poison and watching television. The supermarkets are I would say stocked with around 80% poison. I dont know why any one would buy this poison and then voluntarily eat it. That is something worth complaining about. Not an art project. (well I do know why, its marketing and brainwashing, it is not our tax dollars that should pay for cocacola’s (etc) mess.)
One is minuscule, the other is costing NZ billions of dollars.
I am not “anti business” Corporations are not “businesses” they are corporations. THE CORE PURPOSE OF A CORPORATION IS GREED. That is its function. Corporations farm their work out to the third world. A good business would support local industry and people. It would build community not destroy it. It would not poison the land for profit etc.
Watch the following to learn how the US Government tried to stop the corporations, but lost.
Learn how we got manipulated and used….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dA89CBBOC0
I do not need to be turned into a “happiness machine” so corporations can poison me and call it food.
How much are we spending to have the SAS in Afghanistan?
Really, you guys are all hypocrites. Red necks? True Blue Kiwi Blokes?
Why is child abuse so out of control in NZ? One of the worst countries in the world for it?
IS THAT WHAT WE ARE WORKING FORE? IT MUST BE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T CARE. THE CORPORATIONS DON’T CARE.
WHAT ARE YOU WORKING FOR?
TO POLLUTE THE OCEANS? THE AIR? THE LAND?
WHAT ARE YOU WORKING FOR? TO PAY TAX TO PATCH UP VICTIMS OF CORPORATE GREED, AS THEY STUFF THEMSELVES FULL OF FEEL GOOD POISON?
To get angry about Tao Wells and his art project is pathetic.
It is so classic.
What it does do is highlight the pure hypocrisy of a culture that is obsessed with “me me me”… “why should he get a free ride?”.
There is no free ride friends. For anyone. This is our lives.
The truth is something borne of love.
Our culture is enriched and informed by art. yet that which is not understood is destroyed.
If the mirror that is held up to you highlights imperfection, what can you learn?
jackp
I know the world is imperfect, Jad, but to say Wells’s art will enrich and inform our culture shows how out of touch you really are. Perhaps you should take a sedative made by one of those corporations you were talking about.
Jad
It Tao’s art does not enrich, them what are all these comments about?
Oh right…. how bland people can be.
Maggie
Thank you, bhudson. You belong the group, a large one here, that are unable to provide a sensible, intelligent or rational response. So you indulge in personal attacks instead. Bit like John Key at Question Time.
bhudson
Maggie,
Thank you for a personal observation on me based on a single comment (which I believe you wholeheartedly deserve. I have actually read most of your comments. I’ll wager you can’t say the same of mine and yet you clearly feel you are in a fine position to pass judgement.)
Key pointing out the failings of Labour in the House is part of the job. Unfortunately your lot make it an easy job.
flake
for you darling: http://vimeo.com/31767875