So you propose we sit supinely by while our exports collapse, and Bill English borrows billions and sells off the the family silver in a desperate attempt to cover the gap in our income? That is just another deluded right wing Ponzi scheme! What happens when the cheap Chinese money runs out and the Clyde Dam collapses because Fay-Richwhite energy has asset stripped the business and deferred maintainance to build a new super-yacht for the next Mediterranean cruising season? I thought Russel Normans argument on telly yesterday about this was persuasive. At some stage we have to feel the pain of weaning ourselves off our addiction to easy, unskilled low wages service sector jobs buttressed with cheap imports and switch to policies that encourage exports and import substitution.
One of the biggest problems that NZ has is our pitiful savings rate and our high private borrowings. So if Russel gets his way, and undermines the value of our currency we get precisely opposite incentives to the ones we want.
To extend Russel's "currency war" analogy from the other week, there's no point in trying to shoot when you're caught in the crossfire as we are. We should just be hunkering down and getting ready to move in the direction we want when the worlds big economies have shot each other to pieces and the REAL crash arrives...
I jest not, KS, if the US, Britain, the Eurozone and Japan all make regular use of quantitative easing then I think that I am fairly safe in calling it mainstream. ;-)
Why is playing the Zimbabwe card somehow indicative of one losing an argument? The Zimbabwe situation has a number of lessons that leftists should heed, the most notable being that Governments can't magic prosperity out of thin air and that attacking your productive capital intensive sector will lead to a general decline in incomes across the board.
Considering those countries you mention all have worse performing economies than NZ they are hardly a ringing endorsement of it's success.
What you also fail to take into account is that the Great Depression in the 1930's was made worse by every country attempting to engage in competitive devaluation. This was coupled with increased protectionism. In short the Green's policy smacks of the failed responses of the early 1930's rather than some sort of mainstream serious economic policy mix we should follow now.
Who has the headlines across all of the media platforms today?
The Greens.
Well done Russel Norman. That's how the game is played. On the front foot. Steven Joyce and the rest of you frightened Chicken Littles are scrambling to cover your arses while Russel delivers you all a well earned thrashing. Let it roll, baby, roll!
James it is not private borrowing that is our problem now, but government borrowing. However the private borrowing will start again if the Government doesn't deal with the new housing bubble.
Quantitative easing is not an all or nothing approach and there needs to be moderation in how any economic tool is used. Not intervening at all when our dollar is so over valued is even more dangerous.
Dr Norman has a better grasp of what is wrong here than any of you, John Key or Bill English. The reasons for QE in the rest of the world run deep, and it is IMHO, a mistake, but there is no escape from the effect.
If we don’t match them to some degree, we pay for their mistakes.
We can have jobs or we can have cheap foreign goods paid for by flogging off capital assets.
Choose.
You’d better get your priorities straightened out while we are still an independent country instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of some foreign corporations.
Gosman, You forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal and Michael Savage's approach that pulled their economies out of depression. The depression was generally made worse through the austerity measures before. It is the mix of tools used that is most important and devaluing a currency is only one aspect.
I agree that many other economies are in a worse position than us but it wash't the devaluing of their currencies that caused their problem. The slight recovery in the US economy is due to their exports becoming more competitive.
WTF are you on about Troo Bloo?!? If you having nothing constructive or intelligible to add to this discussion you would be better leave it to the adults.
What the Greens are trying to pull over people's eyes is the idea that people can have teir cake and eat it too. Instead of being upfront and admitting their policies will lead to increased inflation but they are happy to accept that as the proce to pay for whatever it is they think will be a positive they instead try and argue that the Government should attempt to both keep inflation low AND engage in priming the pump economic policies. It is disingenuine in the extreme.
I'm sorry Gosman, but to claim that George Forbes (who preceded Savage) created the foundation for New Zealand's recovery is actually quite ludicrous. My guess is that history will regard Key and English in a similar way as Forbes "apathetic and fatalistic".
"Just as Harry Atkinson had laid the foundations for the boom after the long depression, Gordon Coates, the minister of finance in 1933–35, laid the foundations for a later boom. While the Labour government elected in 1935 was thought to have saved New Zealand from the great depression, the domestic and world recovery was under way before it took office. The new government built on the foundations laid by Coates."
Care to dispute the points raised by this article?
@sprout - I recommend you google up "Myths of the Great Depression" and educate yourself.
The New Deal actually made matters worse not better, and proper economic historians now agree that the US economy did not properly recover until *after* WW2
I think that one of the strengths of the left is that they can create these myths that their more 'caring' policies lead to better economic outcomes. However economies tend to be cyclical in nature and by the the time their policies come in to effect the economy would be likely already moving in a positive direction. What then happens is that the Government is forced to resort to more interventionist policies to correct the engative impacts of what they implemented.
Gosman, Savage made sure that everyone benefited from the recovery while the previous Government protected the rich.
I too can use the same source to support Russel's views: "During the depression there was much criticism of economic policy, which restricted government spending, devalued the currency, cut nominal wages and reduced interest rates and the value of mortgages. Subsequent assessments view these measures as broadly necessary, but suggest that the burden of adjustment could have been more fairly shared." Note the emphasis on devaluing the currency!
James, what the New Deal did was spread the wealth more equitably, which was hugely necessary to lift living standards. I guess the success of any system is based on the lens that is used to view it through.
Interesting you've now changed your view from that it is ludicrous to claim that the Forbes led Government laid the foundation for the recovery from the Depression to broadly agreeing with the view but suggesting it was a devaluation that was critical and that Labour helped by spreading the benefits of the subsequent growth more 'fairly'.
Do you acknowledge that there will be negatives out of this proposed policy of the Greens?
You forgot to mention the lessons of the Weimar republic which were the same as those learned by Zimbabwe.
There also seems to be an impression that QE is working. I am not entirely certain that is the case as if it was then we would have seen the UK and the US start to recover.
Looking at the Eurozone is like disaster tourism. The PIGS are putting it bluntly stuffed for all the reasons you can read about in the Guardian, Independent, or Economist.
James, I've always been of the view that WWII was the only reason for the US recovery.
Ha ha you lefty suckers. I say "ha ha" because it is quite amusing how in person you get all doe eyed and caaring and then through around a violent version why you wished communism should work without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever.
Your post is plain stupid. I suppose you think you know better than the Federal reserve, The Bank of England, The Economist magazine, The Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. I thought Russell Norman’s proposal was quite moderate and responsible. I hope he gains support from people including me. You and various luddites can contemplate opposition.
@ Gosman - prior to the last election the Greens were running a well-publicised system whereby supporters were advised if nasty things were being said about the party around the traps, so that they could counter them. I don't know if that is still happening, but I have my suspicions.
And I am pretty sure that many of the comments here today are from the same person(s) commenting under different identities. So much for transparency!
In a press release from Green Headquarters in Riverton, Mr Norman acknowledged the huge impact his appearance on Q&A has had. I have taken the Green Party mainstream with my call for devaluing our dollar, Mr Norman said. My call for a NZ dollar devaluation by 15% is right in line with the quantative easing in the USA, Britain, and Australia. Where they go, we go. But our appeal has become broader than that. The last NZ Minister of Finance to devalue our dollar was Roger Douglas. He devalued by 20% in 1984. Before him, Robert Muldoon devalued by 10%. My pitch at 15% places us fairly in the middle of left wing and right wing monetary strategy looking backwards. Our Green Party now has widespread appeal right across Southland from Riverton to Invercargill. While our placard-making industry is at a standstill during school holidays, we expect support to mushroom, and new activist groups to sprout up as soon as schools return. The Southland call for me to become Minister of Finance is in line with the huge support the Greens are experiencing on local blogs, and new names are appearing en masse on the blue blogs showing their support for these older policies long since discarded as useless, but like the bicycle, we never forget how to ride them. This old initiative shall be known as "The Norman Con Quest".
I seek leave to apologise for plagarising this above comment from The Norman Con Quest. I thought it very clever and wanted you all to think that I'd thought of it, so stole it without referencing it to the original author. I know, it's shameful, but there you are. I'll do anything, lower my standards as low as they can go, lie, steal and cheat in order to embarrass the Greens and their supporters. Sorry. My bad.
Ha ha. rogerguyford II is wrong for thinking he was wrong, so he was right all along. He usually is.
The news release came from Green Headquarters as quoted. That cheeky Con beat him to it and he hates losing. Actually, he hates most things so serves him right.
Do you ever pause to consider why youŕ considerable efforts are channeled into the very lowest of blog-behaviours - ad hom and personal attacks?
How low you have slunk!
Do you sometimes wonder why you have settled to trying, time after time, to silence another poster? Do you not hold to the principle of free speech? Clearly, your aim is to shut down the voice of a commenter you dont want to hear from.
"...prior to the last election the Greens were running a well-publicised system whereby supporters were advised if nasty things were being said about the party around the traps, so that they could counter them. I don't know if that is still happening, but I have my suspicions."
I can assure you KS that it isn't the case, there are just a growing number of Greens and many must occasionally read your blog. The reaction to Russel's Q + A appearance has been quite entertaining and the fact that you have devoted three posts in a row to it has been quite remarkable. We must be on the right track to cause so much angst. ;-)
Did you see him again on the news tonight, exposing Peter Dunne and John Key over their fondness for making New Zealand a tax haven for international tax cheats? Russel is the go-to man for anyone who wants to know the truth about this Government. he is not popular here on keeping Stock, as a result :-)
Let us be clear. Are you claiming Crybub is not an ad hom - an attempt to demean an individual who posts here?
You are sounding very dishonest, in a slippery John Key sort of way. Are you going to stick to your claim? That would be fun. I would know exactly what to think of you then. Fun and games! (I have to say, I thought you had more integrity and might be a worthy adversary. You have painted yourself into a corner now, I wonder what you will do?
From: Rimu Atkinson [mailto:noreply@greens.org.nz] Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011 To: Subject: [Alert]: Rules and guidelines for usage of the Online Activists system
New announcement in the Online activists group:
________________________
Hi everyone
We need to be very clear about our expectations around how you use the alerts you receive through the Online activists system, so please take a minute to review those expectations below. I doubt it will come as a surprise to many of you as they are based on pretty fundamental green values.
If you have any questions, please reply to this email.
Absolute bottom lines
Do not spam or flood any web site with many similar comments that are off topic. Post actual arguments or your opinion, not simply “vote for xyz!” Do not abuse or defame other people. Do not pretend to be someone you are not – be honest about your motivations and opinions. Do not get into a never ending argument – state your opinion and when it is attacked respond once or twice to clarify any misunderstandings and then let it go. In reality your main audience is the lurkers who never post comments, not the person you are directly engaging with.
General guidelines
These guidelines draw their inspiration from the 4 principles of the Green Charter, the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ecological wisdom
When you participate in an online community, do so in a way that leaves the community in a better state than when you arrived. Don’t disrupt discussion with trolling, irrelevant points or immature behaviour. Seek to clarify and shed light rather than confuse or cause rifts.
Social responsibility
Everyone has a right to have their voice heard and to participate fully, including people who you think are wrong. Respect the norms and etiquette of the online community you are in – these are often quite different from place to place.
Appropriate decision making
You are responsible for your behaviour, even if someone else makes you angry. Do not pretend that because you are in an online world that it is somehow less real and so you are free to treat people differently to how you would in person.
Non-violence
When people feel denigrated or excluded they are less likely to speak up in future. When people leave the conversation then we all lose. Do not attempt to shut down debate.
I'd be interested to hear what you think. You must have been left out of the loop on this one :) Do not knowingly use logical fallacies or manipulative rhetoric in order to ‘win’ a discussion.
James Stephenson? bsprout? Gosman? Monique Angel? Edward the Confessor? Robert Winter? Homepaddock?
Would any of them take offense? I doubt it, and why would they?
What are you on about, Tommy wether the weather? ( Are you Tommy Witherspoon?) You are not at all clear, old chap. You are trying to be offensive, but who comments here who could possibly be offended by my name, and how would we know?
KS, you have found some guidelines for online Green activists during the last election campaign that establishes a behaviour code that is even stricter than the one for your blog and then imply clandestine behaviour.
"Do not knowingly use logical fallacies or manipulative rhetoric in order to ‘win’ a discussion."
I'm sorry I didn't get this, is this intended as an accusation or advice?
It seems to fit your reaction to Russel's QE suggestion that actually has support from a number of economists including the respected Ganesh Nana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh_Nana
QE is just one tool amongst many that is used in conventional macro economic management. All the panic responses suggesting we will end up like Zimbabwe is clearly nonsense and silly scare tactics. Joyce and Key's responses are also a little childish.
Russel has made some very reasoned and rational suggestions based on sound economic practice and I would have thought serious debate would be appropriate. Even Gosman unintentionally exposed the importance of devaluing ones currency to lift an economy.
You are too cryptic for me, Tommy 1, Tommy 2, and Adam Ant
If it is not a regular commenter who is offended, maybe it is a schoolyard bully who hides behind a lot of different names who snivels when exposed? Is that it? Is it you Tommy1, Tommy 2, and Adam Ant (just a guess)
KS this Robert Crybub person seems to be flouting your rules entirely, thumbing his nose at you and your requirement that "We have a low tolerance for abusive comments and for trolling and/or attempts to take threads off-topic." He is not discussing the topic of the thread at all, seems to be attacking someone/some people and looks for all the world like the sort of troll you say you won't tolerate. He's making a mockery of your blog rules and of you. I wonder why you are letting him ride roughshod over your blog? Has he got special exemption to attack your other visitors? That's not the smell of hypocrisy on the breeze here at Keeping Stock, is it?
I'm thinking that too, Keeping Stock. On top of that, It's been pointed out that he is dishonest. That's no reason to bar him from commenting, but it might give you pause to consider his trustworthiness.
62 comments:
The desperate mocking that has resulted from Russel espousing what is essentially mainstream economic practice is significant.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win", we are positioned well to winning government.
"essentially mainstream economic practice"; surely you jest bsprout...
Playing the 'Zimbabwe' card now, KS!
You lose.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
So you propose we sit supinely by while our exports collapse, and Bill English borrows billions and sells off the the family silver in a desperate attempt to cover the gap in our income? That is just another deluded right wing Ponzi scheme! What happens when the cheap Chinese money runs out and the Clyde Dam collapses because Fay-Richwhite energy has asset stripped the business and deferred maintainance to build a new super-yacht for the next Mediterranean cruising season? I thought Russel Normans argument on telly yesterday about this was persuasive. At some stage we have to feel the pain of weaning ourselves off our addiction to easy, unskilled low wages service sector jobs buttressed with cheap imports and switch to policies that encourage exports and import substitution.
"Mainstream economic practice"
Have you actually had a look at what currency dilution has acheived for the US or the UK?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100136397/quantitative-easing-has-failed-and-failed-again-what-madness-has-seized-our-leaders/
One of the biggest problems that NZ has is our pitiful savings rate and our high private borrowings. So if Russel gets his way, and undermines the value of our currency we get precisely opposite incentives to the ones we want.
To extend Russel's "currency war" analogy from the other week, there's no point in trying to shoot when you're caught in the crossfire as we are. We should just be hunkering down and getting ready to move in the direction we want when the worlds big economies have shot each other to pieces and the REAL crash arrives...
I jest not, KS, if the US, Britain, the Eurozone and Japan all make regular use of quantitative easing then I think that I am fairly safe in calling it mainstream. ;-)
Why is playing the Zimbabwe card somehow indicative of one losing an argument? The Zimbabwe situation has a number of lessons that leftists should heed, the most notable being that Governments can't magic prosperity out of thin air and that attacking your productive capital intensive sector will lead to a general decline in incomes across the board.
bsprout,
Considering those countries you mention all have worse performing economies than NZ they are hardly a ringing endorsement of it's success.
What you also fail to take into account is that the Great Depression in the 1930's was made worse by every country attempting to engage in competitive devaluation. This was coupled with increased protectionism. In short the Green's policy smacks of the failed responses of the early 1930's rather than some sort of mainstream serious economic policy mix we should follow now.
Who has the headlines across all of the media platforms today?
The Greens.
Well done Russel Norman. That's how the game is played. On the front foot. Steven Joyce and the rest of you frightened Chicken Littles are scrambling to cover your arses while Russel delivers you all a well earned thrashing.
Let it roll, baby, roll!
James it is not private borrowing that is our problem now, but government borrowing. However the private borrowing will start again if the Government doesn't deal with the new housing bubble.
Quantitative easing is not an all or nothing approach and there needs to be moderation in how any economic tool is used. Not intervening at all when our dollar is so over valued is even more dangerous.
The sky is falling, Gosman, run tell the King!!!
Scott Yorke (you're old mate, KS) is laughing at your views:
http://www.imperatorfish.com/2012/10/money-doesnt-grow-on-trees-but-money.html
Dr Norman has a better grasp of what is wrong here than any of you, John Key or Bill English. The reasons for QE in the rest of the world run deep, and it is IMHO, a mistake, but there is no escape from the effect.
If we don’t match them to some degree, we pay for their mistakes.
We can have jobs or we can have cheap foreign goods paid for by flogging off capital assets.
Choose.
You’d better get your priorities straightened out while we are still an independent country instead of a wholly owned subsidiary of some foreign corporations.
Gosman, You forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal and Michael Savage's approach that pulled their economies out of depression. The depression was generally made worse through the austerity measures before. It is the mix of tools used that is most important and devaluing a currency is only one aspect.
I agree that many other economies are in a worse position than us but it wash't the devaluing of their currencies that caused their problem. The slight recovery in the US economy is due to their exports becoming more competitive.
WTF are you on about Troo Bloo?!? If you having nothing constructive or intelligible to add to this discussion you would be better leave it to the adults.
I disagree bsprout. The first Labour Government was not in power until 1935. By that stage the foundation for any recovery had already be set.
What the Greens are trying to pull over people's eyes is the idea that people can have teir cake and eat it too. Instead of being upfront and admitting their policies will lead to increased inflation but they are happy to accept that as the proce to pay for whatever it is they think will be a positive they instead try and argue that the Government should attempt to both keep inflation low AND engage in priming the pump economic policies. It is disingenuine in the extreme.
I'm sorry Gosman, but to claim that George Forbes (who preceded Savage) created the foundation for New Zealand's recovery is actually quite ludicrous. My guess is that history will regard Key and English in a similar way as Forbes "apathetic and fatalistic".
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/economic-history/7
"Just as Harry Atkinson had laid the foundations for the boom after the long depression, Gordon Coates, the minister of finance in 1933–35, laid the foundations for a later boom. While the Labour government elected in 1935 was thought to have saved New Zealand from the great depression, the domestic and world recovery was under way before it took office. The new government built on the foundations laid by Coates."
Care to dispute the points raised by this article?
@sprout - I recommend you google up "Myths of the Great Depression" and educate yourself.
The New Deal actually made matters worse not better, and proper economic historians now agree that the US economy did not properly recover until *after* WW2
http://www.learnliberty.org/content/top-3-myths-about-great-depression-and-new-deal
I think that one of the strengths of the left is that they can create these myths that their more 'caring' policies lead to better economic outcomes. However economies tend to be cyclical in nature and by the the time their policies come in to effect the economy would be likely already moving in a positive direction. What then happens is that the Government is forced to resort to more interventionist policies to correct the engative impacts of what they implemented.
Gosman, Savage made sure that everyone benefited from the recovery while the previous Government protected the rich.
I too can use the same source to support Russel's views:
"During the depression there was much criticism of economic policy, which restricted government spending, devalued the currency, cut nominal wages and reduced interest rates and the value of mortgages. Subsequent assessments view these measures as broadly necessary, but suggest that the burden of adjustment could have been more fairly shared."
Note the emphasis on devaluing the currency!
James, what the New Deal did was spread the wealth more equitably, which was hugely necessary to lift living standards. I guess the success of any system is based on the lens that is used to view it through.
Interesting you've now changed your view from that it is ludicrous to claim that the Forbes led Government laid the foundation for the recovery from the Depression to broadly agreeing with the view but suggesting it was a devaluation that was critical and that Labour helped by spreading the benefits of the subsequent growth more 'fairly'.
Do you acknowledge that there will be negatives out of this proposed policy of the Greens?
You forgot to mention the lessons of the Weimar republic which were the same as those learned by Zimbabwe.
There also seems to be an impression that QE is working. I am not entirely certain that is the case as if it was then we would have seen the UK and the US start to recover.
Looking at the Eurozone is like disaster tourism. The PIGS are putting it bluntly stuffed for all the reasons you can read about in the Guardian, Independent, or Economist.
James, I've always been of the view that WWII was the only reason for the US recovery.
Ha ha you lefty suckers. I say "ha ha" because it is quite amusing how in person you get all doe eyed and caaring and then through around a violent version why you wished communism should work without any evidence or reasoning whatsoever.
http://devilsexcrement.com/2011/12/19/the-venezuela-money-printing-machine-is-definitely-running/Think
Ha ha you lefty suckers. I say "ha ha" because I'm ditzy. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Take that, greenies.
What Russel wants, Russel gets.
Suck it up, Tories!
The Green co-leader has you all scrambling!
This is a joy to watch.
What do you mean scrambling Joy?
Simply pointing out the errors and misrepresentation in his thinking i shardly scrambling.
What would qualify as not scrambling in your viewpoint?
Would you prefer people just ignored his rantings on the the economy?
Your post is plain stupid. I suppose you think you know better than the Federal reserve, The Bank of England, The Economist magazine, The Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank. I thought Russell Norman’s proposal was quite moderate and responsible. I hope he gains support from people including me. You and various luddites can contemplate opposition.
You do soud desperate, Gosman!
"Contemplate opposition"
Well said Borrower!
I smell Government. It has a green fragrance.
So nothing substantive to add to the debate then Joy. Why do you bother posting then?
@Orinoco Mangel said...
By ditzy I'm assuming you mean a successful business investor, geek and overall sexy lady.
Thanks.
@ Gosman - prior to the last election the Greens were running a well-publicised system whereby supporters were advised if nasty things were being said about the party around the traps, so that they could counter them. I don't know if that is still happening, but I have my suspicions.
And I am pretty sure that many of the comments here today are from the same person(s) commenting under different identities. So much for transparency!
You should be flattered by the attention Monique!
"...known in less polite circles of course as "printing money"."
These then, are the less polite circles.
"If printing money is the answer, it must have been a very daft question.
posted by Keeping Stock at 9:26 AM on Oct 8, 2012"
Monique - if by " successful business investor, geek and overall sexy lady"
you mean narcissistic airhead, then yes!
Wow Orinoco! You have managed to offer exactly nothing to this debate at all with your ad hominem attacks on Monique. Quite an achievenment there.
Must read News Release from Green Headquarters.
Russel Norman for Minister of Finance.
In a press release from Green Headquarters in Riverton, Mr Norman acknowledged the huge impact his appearance on Q&A has had.
I have taken the Green Party mainstream with my call for devaluing our dollar, Mr Norman said. My call for a NZ dollar devaluation by 15% is right in line with the quantative easing in the USA, Britain, and Australia. Where they go, we go. But our appeal has become broader than that. The last NZ Minister of Finance to devalue our dollar was Roger Douglas. He devalued by 20% in 1984. Before him, Robert Muldoon devalued by 10%. My pitch at 15% places us fairly in the middle of left wing and right wing monetary strategy looking backwards. Our Green Party now has widespread appeal right across Southland from Riverton to Invercargill. While our placard-making industry is at a standstill during school holidays, we expect support to mushroom, and new activist groups to sprout up as soon as schools return.
The Southland call for me to become Minister of Finance is in line with the huge support the Greens are experiencing on local blogs, and new names are appearing en masse on the blue blogs showing their support
for these older policies long since discarded as useless, but like the bicycle, we never forget how to ride them.
This old initiative shall be known as "The Norman Con Quest".
I seek leave to apologise for plagarising this above comment from The Norman Con Quest. I thought it very clever and wanted you all to think that I'd thought of it, so stole it without referencing it to the original author.
I know, it's shameful, but there you are. I'll do anything, lower my standards as low as they can go, lie, steal and cheat in order to embarrass the Greens and their supporters.
Sorry.
My bad.
This devaluation policy is recycling of old policies at its finest.
Ha ha. rogerguyford II is wrong for thinking he was wrong, so he was right all along. He usually is.
The news release came from Green Headquarters as quoted. That cheeky Con beat him to it and he hates losing. Actually, he hates most things so serves him right.
roger crybub et al
Do you ever pause to consider why youŕ considerable efforts are channeled into the very lowest of blog-behaviours - ad hom and personal attacks?
How low you have slunk!
Do you sometimes wonder why you have settled to trying, time after time, to silence another poster? Do you not hold to the principle of free speech?
Clearly, your aim is to shut down the voice of a commenter you dont want to hear from.
Cloaca.
Name one, Tommy Witherspoon.
One ad hom, Crybub?
Crybub?
*whistles nonchalantly. That was too easy. Too.
"...prior to the last election the Greens were running a well-publicised system whereby supporters were advised if nasty things were being said about the party around the traps, so that they could counter them. I don't know if that is still happening, but I have my suspicions."
I can assure you KS that it isn't the case, there are just a growing number of Greens and many must occasionally read your blog. The reaction to Russel's Q + A appearance has been quite entertaining and the fact that you have devoted three posts in a row to it has been quite remarkable. We must be on the right track to cause so much angst. ;-)
Russel has ripped their nickers, bsprout.
And he will keep doing it too.
Did you see him again on the news tonight, exposing Peter Dunne and John Key over their fondness for making New Zealand a tax haven for international tax cheats? Russel is the go-to man for anyone who wants to know the truth about this Government. he is not popular here on keeping Stock, as a result :-)
Crybub, Tommy Witherspoon?
How can my name possibly be an ad hom?
What do you mean?
Who on this blog could possibly be offended by my name?
if nasty things were being said about the party around the traps
is that why they come here KS?
Robert@8:07
Let us be clear.
Are you claiming Crybub is not an ad hom - an attempt to demean an individual who posts here?
You are sounding very dishonest, in a slippery John Key sort of way. Are you going to stick to your claim? That would be fun. I would know exactly what to think of you then. Fun and games!
(I have to say, I thought you had more integrity and might be a worthy adversary. You have painted yourself into a corner now, I wonder what you will do?
@bsprout - you say "I can assure you KS that it isn't the case" with some authority. Maybe you should read this:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/10/green_astro-turfing_backfires.html
This one too bsprout:
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2011/10/greens-send-warning-to-members/
From: Rimu Atkinson [mailto:noreply@greens.org.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011
To:
Subject: [Alert]: Rules and guidelines for usage of the Online Activists system
New announcement in the Online activists group:
________________________
Hi everyone
We need to be very clear about our expectations around how you use the alerts you receive through the Online activists system, so please take a minute to review those expectations below. I doubt it will come as a surprise to many of you as they are based on pretty fundamental green values.
If you have any questions, please reply to this email.
Absolute bottom lines
Do not spam or flood any web site with many similar comments that are off topic. Post actual arguments or your opinion, not simply “vote for xyz!”
Do not abuse or defame other people.
Do not pretend to be someone you are not – be honest about your motivations and opinions.
Do not get into a never ending argument – state your opinion and when it is attacked respond once or twice to clarify any misunderstandings and then let it go. In reality your main audience is the lurkers who never post comments, not the person you are directly engaging with.
General guidelines
These guidelines draw their inspiration from the 4 principles of the Green Charter, the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Ecological wisdom
When you participate in an online community, do so in a way that leaves the community in a better state than when you arrived.
Don’t disrupt discussion with trolling, irrelevant points or immature behaviour.
Seek to clarify and shed light rather than confuse or cause rifts.
Social responsibility
Everyone has a right to have their voice heard and to participate fully, including people who you think are wrong.
Respect the norms and etiquette of the online community you are in – these are often quite different from place to place.
Appropriate decision making
You are responsible for your behaviour, even if someone else makes you angry.
Do not pretend that because you are in an online world that it is somehow less real and so you are free to treat people differently to how you would in person.
Non-violence
When people feel denigrated or excluded they are less likely to speak up in future. When people leave the conversation then we all lose. Do not attempt to shut down debate.
I'd be interested to hear what you think. You must have been left out of the loop on this one :)
Do not knowingly use logical fallacies or manipulative rhetoric in order to ‘win’ a discussion.
James Stephenson?
bsprout?
Gosman?
Monique Angel?
Edward the Confessor?
Robert Winter?
Homepaddock?
Would any of them take offense? I doubt it, and why would they?
What are you on about, Tommy wether the weather? ( Are you Tommy Witherspoon?)
You are not at all clear, old chap.
You are trying to be offensive, but who comments here who could possibly be offended by my name, and how would we know?
Continue painting, I see, Mr Crybub. And now you have painted yourself dishonest.
All I need to know.
KS, you have found some guidelines for online Green activists during the last election campaign that establishes a behaviour code that is even stricter than the one for your blog and then imply clandestine behaviour.
"Do not knowingly use logical fallacies or manipulative rhetoric in order to ‘win’ a discussion."
I'm sorry I didn't get this, is this intended as an accusation or advice?
It seems to fit your reaction to Russel's QE suggestion that actually has support from a number of economists including the respected Ganesh Nana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganesh_Nana
QE is just one tool amongst many that is used in conventional macro economic management. All the panic responses suggesting we will end up like Zimbabwe is clearly nonsense and silly scare tactics. Joyce and Key's responses are also a little childish.
Russel has made some very reasoned and rational suggestions based on sound economic practice and I would have thought serious debate would be appropriate. Even Gosman unintentionally exposed the importance of devaluing ones currency to lift an economy.
You are too cryptic for me, Tommy 1, Tommy 2, and Adam Ant
If it is not a regular commenter who is offended, maybe it is a schoolyard bully who hides behind a lot of different names who snivels when exposed?
Is that it?
Is it you Tommy1, Tommy 2, and Adam Ant (just a guess)
KS this Robert Crybub person seems to be flouting your rules entirely, thumbing his nose at you and your requirement that "We have a low tolerance for abusive comments and for trolling and/or attempts to take threads off-topic."
He is not discussing the topic of the thread at all, seems to be attacking someone/some people and looks for all the world like the sort of troll you say you won't tolerate. He's making a mockery of your blog rules and of you. I wonder why you are letting him ride roughshod over your blog?
Has he got special exemption to attack your other visitors?
That's not the smell of hypocrisy on the breeze here at Keeping Stock, is it?
I'm thinking that too, Keeping Stock.
On top of that, It's been pointed out that he is dishonest. That's no reason to bar him from commenting, but it might give you pause to consider his trustworthiness.
"On top of that, It's been pointed out that he is dishonest. That's no reason to bar him from commenting..."
Others have been banned for being dishonest. Not a big list though.
But Tiny.
No one can believe a word you say.
Post a Comment