Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Not So Green

Entry 784, on 2008-06-02 at 19:55:49 (Rating 2, Politics)

It must be an election year again because all sorts of political posturing and rhetoric is starting to appear on the New Zealand political stage. Yes, it is a stage, because its like everyone is playing a part in sort sort of bizarre tragi-comedy.

Labour seem to have no hope of winning the election and its looking like they might be completely thrashed. This doesn't really seem to be anything to do with National being particularly attractive - after all they have avoided publicising policies on most issues - its more related to people being sick of Labour.

I usually support the left of the political spectrum but I can see why Labour are failing the great popularity contest which is politics. I don't think there would be many objections to what they have done - although their opponents will always find something to pick on - its more their general attitude which people found objectionable. They have just been in power too long and if there is one strong rule of NZ politics its that voters don't tolerate the same party being in charge for too long, irrespective of what they actually do.

National and Labour seem to have been drifting together recently, despite some of Labour's recent actions being quite leftist. The Greens' co-leader described National and Labour as "Father Coke and Mother Pepsi". I guess he was saying they are almost indistinguishable from each other and both have no genuine value in their content. Its getting like the situation in the US: do you want bad or worse? Only MMP stops New Zealand from being in the same terrible position. I can't understand why people want to scrap it.

The issue which got the Greens upset with their presumed political allies was the emissions trading scheme. Labour have been backing away from the original plan as they realised the political and economic implications. I think an emissions trading scheme is a good idea but it will only work if everyone cooperates and I can't see that ever happening. If countries like China are prepared to push economic growth ahead of any other consideration they won't be sacrificing that growth for minor issues such as saving the planet from disastrous climate change.

And in some ways we can't blame them, because the US has grown by using massive amounts of fossil fuels and producing correspondingly huge amounts of pollution. Is it not now China's and India's turns to grow no matter what the cost? I'm sure they think so.

So we are all doomed really. There will never be realistic management of the planet's resources as a whole because there will always be pressure for individual states or corporations to take shortcuts which give them an advantage over their competitors. That's really what the global marketplace is all about: who can cynically exploit the resources they have available to them (energy sources, cheap labour, corrupt politicians, etc) the most.

The inevitable climate change won't be the end of the world, of course, and it won't even be the end of human civilisation as we know it. But it will be the biggest factor causing the extinction of many species, the death of many people, and a lot of political conflict. But that's a small price to pay if a few rich corporations can make even more money, isn't it?

Comment 1 (1475) by SBFL on 2008-07-03 at 00:36:52:

I was just dropping by to say I haven't gone away and to comment on a rather good post but you have to ruin it with the last sentence - more silly left wing rhetoric. These "rich corporations" create jobs for regular folk. Jobs = income for families. And as the aluminium smelter down your way have pointed out, ETS = less jobs = no income for some families. Rich corporations at fault? Ah no, more like the over-zealous Green influence on our Government.

Comment 2 (1476) by OJB on 2008-07-03 at 13:17:39:

Well I just can't resist a bit of the silly stuff - it would be not much fun otherwise! But I do believe that corporations are responsible for many of the problems we have today as a society. I know that under the current economic system they are necessary, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise them where appropriate.

Comment 3 (1477) by SBFL on 2008-07-03 at 17:11:55:

"But I do believe that corporations are responsible for many of the problems we have today as a society."
- come on, would you have us live in the dark ages? Many of these "rich corporations" started off as an idea, became a project, then a small business, medium enterprise and eventually a fully fledged multi-national company providing growth and jobs to the communities they operate in. In this day an age these "rich corporations" are the forefront of H&S initiatives, environmental sustainability and other forms of corporate social responsibility. Despite all these good positive initiatives, there will always be the socialist ideologues who can only knock a good thing, and while nobody is perfect they are more interested in pointing out the splinters in others eyes without realizing the log in their own.

Comment 4 (1478) by OJB on 2008-07-03 at 21:00:49:

They are only at the forefront in those areas because they have to be by law. They stifle innovation and kill off new ideas from smaller companies. They spend lots of money to influence politicians for their own benefit (and against the greater good of the majority). They employ a lot less people than the equivalent number of smaller companies.

OK, there are good things too: they are often quite efficient, etc. But we do have to recognise the bad things and not pretend they don't exist.

Comment 5 (1479) by SBFL on 2008-07-04 at 01:21:16:

Haha, what a cynic. Looks like you've been spending too much time at meetings of the local Socialist League. You really need to get involved with a large company. You will find they get involved in such community matters because it is in their interest to to be a good corporate citizen, not because they have to. Have you heard of the term 'economies of scale', 'growth' and 'competitiveness'? You would be quite happy that people sat in meaningless, non-productive jobs, and then when the company falls over for being unable to cope with a downturn in the market but their efficient competitor survives, you cry foul at the resultant loss of all the jobs!

Before you criticize your made up bad things may I suggest you do some research and ensure there is substance to a criticism. Might be better to point out specific incidents (which do warrant scrutiny) rather than making broadbrush claims straight out of a socialist's handbook.

Comment 6 (1480) by OJB on 2008-07-04 at 08:31:21:

Are you denying these things happen? Have you ever heard of the vast sums large corporations spend in the US to influence political change? I'm not denying that corporations have some good points. You shouldn't deny that they have bad points!

Comment 7 (1481) by OJB on 2008-07-04 at 10:47:04:

And I know you are just engaging in a little bit of lighthearted banter but, just for the record: I have never been to a meeting of any socialist organisation, I have never read a socialists handbook, and I do understand the advantages of economies of scale. I am merely pointing out that we should not give corporations a "free pass" to do whatever they like just because they are an important economic factor in our society.

Also, although I have provided no references to formal documentation supporting my view, neither have you. Are we both going to play by the same rules, or not?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.