
'Capitalism failed': Jacinda Ardern signals major economic shift - andrewstuart
http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/finance-news/2017/10/22/jacinda-ardern-capitalism/
======
BLKNSLVR
Any arguments comparing Capitalism, Socialism, Communism from one country to
the next are generally fallible due to the inherent corruption within the top
layers of any of the 'systems'.

Capitalism can work with appropriate safeguards - which are often based on the
ideals of socialism.

Communism appears to be working for China as per its growing worldwide
influence, but the worldwide influence it has gained appears to be based on
strong capitalist ideals, externally at least.

The answer lies somewhere in-between. As it always does.

~~~
ionised
> The answer lies somewhere in-between. As it always does.

Exactly. It's called social democracy and its proponents are social democrats.

------
mkempe
She claims there are "hundreds of thousands of children living in homes
without enough to survive."

NZ population: 4.8 million, of which 900,000 are under the age of 16. So she's
talking about a vast proportion of their children living in utter misery (one
third? half?).

Life in NZ must be really awful, courtesy of free markets. It will be
interesting to observe how much regulation and socialism they will implement,
and how much better children fare after that. Are there examples of countries
that have embraced socialism, and thereby improved their lot?

~~~
mr_toad
It's ~ 1/3\. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households. It's
defined that way because the poverty researchers quite literally want to
create a society in which everyone has the same income. I've worked with these
researchers.

I'm not sure that the politicians and media who report on these things fully
comprehend what these researchers are saying. In fact, from what I've seen
most of the media and politicians in New Zealand lack basic maths skills.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> It's ~ 1/3\. Poverty is _defined_ as the bottom third of households.

Yes. It's fundamentally a rhetorical trick. If the bottom third had a median
income of $500,000 per year, they'd still be counted as being in "poverty".

I strongly suspect that Zimbabwe, Haiti, or Bangladesh-level poverty (i.e.,
real poverty) doesn't exist anywhere in New Zealond.

~~~
cam_l
if the bottom third has a median income of 500k, the average rent would be
475k.. and they would still be in poverty.

so yes, money is fundamentally a rhetorical trick.

~~~
Turing_Machine
No, a rhetorical trick is what you are doing by using words like "poverty"
without defining what they mean.

Do you have any evidence that Haiti, Bangladesh, or North Korea-level poverty
(i.e., what most people think of when they see the word "poverty") exists on
any meaningful scale in New Zealand?

Hint: no, you don't. Because it doesn't.

Are you deliberately using the word "poverty" to mislead people?

Hint: yes, you are.

~~~
cam_l
in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the
point.

the dollar amount of money is irrelevant. talk to someone from Zimbabwe..

money is a rhetorical device which describes power. if the spread of wealth or
income is relatively flat, the power is mitigated. if it is sufficiently broad
as to cause significant inequality, money can be used to enforce poverty.

so, let's say for the sake of argument I am using poverty to mean whatever it
means where you live, let's assume the US, and $500k as the buying power of
whatever it means where you live. give everyone a half million, give it a few
weeks and then tell me how much it costs to get a place to live, or a cup of
coffee for that matter..

~~~
Turing_Machine
> in your haste to be hostile and patronising I think you entirely missed the
> point.

No, _you_ are missing the point.

People pushing an agenda use the word "poverty" as an emotional appeal,
because it makes people think of starving kids in Africa covered with flies,
etc. It wouldn't have nearly the impact if it was made clear that someone in
"poverty" can have a house, a car, and plenty to eat.

> money is a rhetorical device which describes power.

The word "rhetoric" does not mean what you apparently think it means.

~~~
cam_l
So, in response to my assertion that perhaps you missed my point, you simply
restate your own point. You clearly did not care to understand the argument,
or but just pushed your own pet theory. Yes, you are being hostile and
patronising, and you have now doubled down on that.

I can only imagine you have never met anyone living in poverty in New Zealand,
or the US, given that you seem to have so little regard for them. If you
actually think that the bar for poverty should be set so low as to be the
point of actual starvation, then I really don't know what to say to you. My
empathy, for one, extends a little further to my fellow man.

But anyway, my argument restated in case I am misreading you.. in fact,
definitions of poverty do not matter once you understand that differentials in
power create the conditions for poverty. It is lack of power then, not money
which creates poverty. And once you understand that money is not an actual
thing, but an agreement.. a societal construct to codify peoples access to
power (to have control over their wealth). It is designed to be persuasive, it
is a promise of your own power and the ability to confer it on someone else.
But it lacks any content itself, ultimately, money only works because of the
implicit threat of the state or group which creates the agreement. It is a
device I would describe as rhetoric.

ie. rhetoric: language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but
which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

------
TenJack
I wouldn't call this a failure of capitalism necessarily, you could also blame
it on a failure of social policies.

~~~
tareqak
I'd say it has more to do with how the word "capitalism" is used ambiguously
to support arguments for better or for worse, and how that rhetoric is woven
into social policies.

Capitalism might concern itself only with only the "private ownership of the
means of production and their operation for profit" [0], but there is no
reason that it strictly has to be deployed in a manner that is insensitive to
human needs and desires. If anything, sufficient ignorance of these long-term
objectives only makes it more likely that whatever flavor of capitalism that
is deployed keeps consuming until it causes events that lead to its own
destruction.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

------
nickthemagicman
Capitalism is amazing. Unregulated capitalism is an dystopic nightmare.

------
Cyberdog
Down this rhetorical road lies Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Let's pray the voters
and legislative branch of New Zealand are able to temper PM Ardern's flights
of fancy.

~~~
jgamman
NZ runs a proportional representation election system and since we had our
election 2 months ago it would seem that 52% of NZers have chosen to temper
the neoliberal flights of fancy.

Good? Bad? I dunno but you're in 'culture' territory here so be careful with
your comments - NZers live on a giant farm and we have hungry kids
underperforming in schools/employment and our beautiful rivers chock full of
literal crap. Lot's of Kiwis are very unhappy about _any_ system that thinks
this is an acceptable tradeoff for unevenly distributed $$.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> since we had our election 2 months ago it would seem that 52% of NZers have
> chosen to temper the neoliberal flights of fancy.

And? 56% of Venezuelans voted for Hugo Chavez.

The only "flight of fancy" here is that Marxism can somehow ever be made to
work. One would think that a hundred million dead bodies piled up over the
last century would be enough to constitute persuasive evidence, but True
Believers gonna believe, I guess.

~~~
PostOnce
How about all the bodies that piled up in defense of capital and capitalism?
It seems worthwhile to tell both sides of the story.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-
Persian_Oil_Company#Nati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-
Persian_Oil_Company#Nationalisation)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Banana_ma...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#Banana_massacre)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War)

There's a lot more where that came from.

~~~
Turing_Machine
> How about all the bodies that piled up in defense of capital and capitalism?

That's not a hundred million. Not by orders of magnitude.

There is no "other side of the story" here.

