DANG! There goes that cute Emma Watson,Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Bell Hooks view I had of feminism. Talk about a dark Satanic past.


 ...In the massive spirit of these ...ahem, Ladies...above ....

Jacinda Wants to GIVE you stuff!

 Like Obama and the Clintons our newest Prime Minister wants to reward you for having voted for her.

To me she is a fairly extreme left-wing SJW (Social Justice Warrior) Labour Party Socialist for her policies.

Living Wage

Living wage is an attempt to raise the lowest level of income of the poorest paid work's and student work's and young workers and perhaps rural workers or migrant workers fresh in from overseas to a level that is called a living wage. Fair enough you say? Sounds good, what's the problem? How could anyone have any difficulty with that. The cost of living is rising surely we need to pay people for so they can afford to go to work. And to live reasonably okay off their own wages or salary or earnings. What could be a better idea than that? Sounds good to me!

This type of idea comes up every so often and has been around at least five years or so. And on the face of it it does sound like a good idea it sounds kind and benevolent and friendly he even useful. We all know that eventually the money is spent so it must be good for businesses somehow at least eventually. If people have more money they will spend more money. Young people have it hard these days. They have a student loan to pay for not like we had. Things cost more, the rents are rising, there are not so many jobs and many students have up to 4 jobs each- they are bending more time running around chasing these little one day jobs than they are studying after their lectures. All true. And also very sad. I do not entirely envy their position. The aim of such granting is of extra money is laudable. Please believe me I do think on the face of it it is a good idea. Some mechanism for the relief of the student loan in particular seems pertinent and obvious.
In the old days of Michael Joseph Savage and the far lower overall, compounded and real tax rate I would agree with you utterly and every detail and with every passion of the sentiment. However something happens when you go over a 50% real tax rate. Something pernicious which detracts from the good sentiment. And it is this. All things considered- all costs and consequences allowed for: after a 50% real tax rate you begin to lose; get given something and more is taken away in the end they knew ostensibly are supposed to receive. We government gift has authority. It should do as it says. It should be something like an outright gift. A real freebie. That in all senses is actually and consequentially FREE. But is it? Are there consequences with a free gift? Is there anything wrong with it? Well yes there is and it's far more drastic than you could possibly imagine. Dear Jacinda please rethink not the sentiment but the delivery mechanism of the sentiment.

 What happens at the 50% Mark?


Well at the 50% mark this situation is somewhat neutral – though for other reasons I must recall in a later paragraph than here – the neutral position probably really ends at 40% or so. So one of first up look at the basis for a neutral economic effect I plumbed for the 50% mark in my thinking. But the neutral point which may float somewhat in a better consideration is somewhere else, probably earlier. Basically the more the government probes itself and inserts itself into the main economic process by whatever means quite apart from taxation (havoc results- having opposite result from intended) but taxation is the main indicator here.

Here my kind of thinking arises from the sort of bulking up generalising attitude I have from wide reading and my population economy idea of economic thinking. Some of this was triggered by Dr Paul Ormerod's call the death of economics. I was thinking well if it is dead why did he persist with it in later chapters? Why didn't he kill it off and speculate about what we can do to replace it. There were only several chapters in his book that discussed this and that was very satisfying to me. It seemed to fit intuitively with what was happening in government economies all around us. For that is what they are, government economies. Government economies are taxation economies, government economies are monetarist economies – government economies are internal and external and deal with the results of policy are the value all the dollar the inputs and recognition is an responses of the markets in the overseas worldwide international investor communities. I am aware of things like the new silk road. Hand and acutely aware of the Chinese probing out into the South China Sea and their interaction with Fiji and the Philippines. Both island nations having deep harbours of great interest to their Navy. We have deep water harbours. Meaning that heavily laden transports and commercial shipping can berth there in sheltered and protected waters. China currently has very full oil and is looking to be a dual world power for a long time to come. Plans have very quickly become Imperial, imperious and world confident shall we say. Let us not allow them to out think us. They were very much like to explore the southern ocean oilfields. And if the flat Earth theory is a multi variant possibility – then those oilfields and that ocean out there is at least three or four times larger than ever thought before. Except for the United Nations map and for the Nuremberg Court map emblazoned on the final court documents cover. We must see that the Chinese have reached a point of membership or ambition to come to the knowledge Captain Cook first accurately explored. Captain Cook used New Zealand as the jumping off point for his expedition to circumnavigate the Antarctica. New Zealand is a great jumping off point to explore the southern oceans as well. There could be great contention for this region in the future over that. Therefore it is extremely pertinent that we pursue most aggressively our own interests in the region. Economically speaking New Zealand itself is therefore potentially one of the world's wealthiest countries for hundreds of years to come. Mainly in servicing the setup and installation costs borne by such a great empire as China or any resurgent America (which despite trump seems extremely unlikely). There are other contenders of course, Indonesia or India may be such. China clearly has long term plans for the region for itself. It would mean breaking the Western alliance. Would they let us go? There are many complex matters to consider.

For this we must not make any mistakes in the meantime. Mistakes basic taxation and economics would be extremely foolish and signal exactly the wrong kind of message. We must remain efficient effective strong and powerful ourselves in the face of such contending options.
There is another source of wealth we must develop as if we were in a crisis. For we are in a crisis presentation. We're not in a Commonwealth any more, English advisers will not guide our future. We must seek the strength and the ideas from within our cell as Kiwis in New Zealand and face of vigourous future vigourously powerfully and strongly. The human face of capitalism smacks of a weakening. Only discipline people can present a strong vigourous economy for ourselves and the world. Any weakening of this will make a scene like marshmallow softies to these contending options.

Also by believing our own rhetoric – as basic an intellectual error as ever there was one- could see us lose the very social gains in the meantime by an inflationary kickback from not considering the resultant costs and distribution pass on's in warehousing and retailing that will absolutely limit the effect to the taxpayer and the voter of the intended benefice. The gift could disappoint via inflation.

The main cause of which Is the high real tax rate. At the neutral point this would not be noticeable. Though unfortunately we've gone far beyond that. It might be because we've gone almost twice as far the on the neutral point is strictly speaking in absolute economical limit for what you're attempting to do. Let's jump forward at this point and say that the real tax rate is 100%. You intend to give the punter the taxpayer or the voter a 20% pay increase so his $1000 a week becomes $1200. But it is immediately up by the 100% real tax rate. An amusing almost inability to describe this occurs here in doesn't really matter if it disappears at the rate of 100% totally disappearing for $1000 or $1200; no it doesn't – a pure case of purely illustration of pointlessness. Kind of like what happens to the sucker or the muggins whose somehow agreed to let his government tax and 100% in return for a free flat a free job and possibly free wife or something. Who the hell would want a stock standard government issued wife? She would be like army rations. Unappealing. The flat would be like everyone else's underclothes all uniform issued would be like everyone else's and we would look all look like people and Mao T'se Tongs cultural revolution. The same, the same, all dreadfully the same. Exactly the same. All of us poor little Rewi Ali's all over again.

Millions of us like clones, Thinking the same being the same because conformity meat less trouble obtaining the continuous flow of the freebies rather than the cash income that we would now utterly dependent upon. Obviously a control freak government would be very pleased with this result. The people would be docile and uncomplaining. All dissidents would be shot because they would stick out like sore thumbs- they would seem so weird when everybody was the same. Naturally any deviation would then appear weird and stray and inexplicable. It would be impossible to explicate it. Lacking reasons or explanation these individuals would appear alien and rebellious to the revolution of sameness. This is exactly the condition the old Communist China. And at 67% obviously we are fairly nearly there. No wonder masculist thinking or any independent thinking appears strange and inexplicable to the people. There is an literally 67% conformity to the current government ideologically a matter what shade it is because exactly 67% of us depend on the 67% taxation for our normal literal existential living requirements; like food and clothing and funding and jobs and pensions and benefits and such like. Who wants to rock the boat. He must be weird. Weirder than the homosexuals were thought to be. What a strange thing to be different when everybody has ceased talking about conformity – the original old hippie battle cry. What a strange outcome after all these years. 1968 is dead. Long live the revolution whatever that is.


It would be dreadful. We are all conformity nuts now. All the groups saying to each other that global warming denial must be banned and that those who to deny the Holocaust must be banned from speaking- like David Irving was by the president of the New Zealand Jewish society. This kind of thing has a curious effect that we knew of in the hippy days. If you banned marijuana everyone wanted to smoke it is an act of rebellion and did. Yet the same people want to ban you being a man thinking man thoughts like this or that of the other thing. Actually sending people to jail for words that are in the dictionary. You can say obscene words all you like and nothing happens. You can say let's kill the Prime Minister as they said of John Key. Left-wingers said this kind of thing openly about John Key. But to say anything that somehow offends somebody but there is no way you know it's an open ended list of words which can be all of the 500,000 or more words there are in the English language any one of them can be considered offensive any one of million different combination giving one and almost infinite possibility in words of causing offence to some one person. How can this idiotic concept have ever got off the ground. It is a wonder we can barely communicate with each other any more if virtually almost anything you say can be considered illegal. It is as if they have banned every word in the English language and every combination of every possible configuration of those words in the English language in potentia. Introducing feelings legislation must be the maddest baddest stupidest craziest silliest idea ever thought of. It brings the law into disrepute. It makes the courts look totally ridiculous. It makes all governments which insist on this sort of rubbish universally evil. As being cast outright into an impossible role. That of interpreting almost all thing and almost anything at all everything if possible as being a potential crime.

It is why crimes must be prescriptive not open ended. They must dare to close down on physical things. First of all because harm is first of all most felt when it is physical.
We are in short heading for Communism by stealth- and curiously even lefties CANNOT want that.

Modern lefties want homosexuality and feminism; Old style Soviet Marxists would shoot both of them. Without feeling in the slightest squeamish about it.
Nor does ecology thinking get a hearing in the old communist world. Capitalism was always liberal and tolerant; Christians were satisfied that the laws were on the books; they were seldom used. Only egregious DISPLAYS of blatant homosexuality were acted upon. Like Oscar Wilde. Mostly it was left upon the table. What happened under the table was another thing. But notice once LGBT are in power- no forgiveness; all is the brutal thrusting of their vile laws down the normal majorities throats. With real claims and legal impositions affecting everyone. Leave us in peace. If you have laws do not enact them. Let them only lie upon the table inactive. Do not quel the natural energies of the people by supposed fashionable impingements-give us our freedom. Respect the majority.

 Say you have a desire to give someone a wage increase for no reason; no economic reason that is. Just an increase.

A student has $500 a week for pay. This is too little for high end studies. So living wage increases this to $600. But is paying by some way the full average 'real tax rate' of 67%. Thus two thirds goes to the Government pretty well directly. She keeps one third. Alright. Seemingly well and good. Look in the account- there it is -transaction recorded. What could be plainer. Gain to the student. Yes. So far. But there is more. More to consider that is. I have found most people stop right there. Money in account. Sum paid, transaction to the student. Done deal. We can do this. A done deal complete. Next! A government of ACTION. Wonderful! Did you like that? No!

Because most people stop there- what I call first order of thinking.

That is it. Stop there just as described, right at that point because they think it is finished. Promise kept and all that sort of thing. At least in that scenario.

Yet there is more- which is what I call second order of thinking. Because there is more. Which here is what I shall call -consequences (in other scenarios other 'second order steps may'  get called other things- what they are called doesn't matter) - consequences that may lead onto a third order and so on- basically all higher subsequent 'entailments' of effect/affect if need be- or serial sequences subsequent to the first. Most socialist thinkers appear to stop there that I have met- even Helen Clarks former advisor. I have not ever been impressed by their grasp of things- rather the reverse. So there is this second order in our scenario.

The consequences can spread out. And they do here. The student employee buys things. The people she buys things from have people too on living wage. The government takes its cut. Things are looking good. Receipts are up so the economy is responding well to this indirect 'stimulus' it thinks. But is the economy being stimulated by this at all? First real question. A little doubt begins to cloud our mind. The government knows nothing of this doubt. Receipts are indeed up- and fairly straight away too. Government thinks things are hunki dorey, oki dokey. All the signals are positive. The shop has to increase prices though. To recover costs on wages for living wage workers. The student frequents places where both she and other students work on these wages. Things appear flush. Someone remarks that the government seems to get back more than they keep. Hell! The Government gets more than we do on the deal! They get two thirds but we get only one third. The shop has to raise prices soon after. For the wage bill has shot up. No productivity increases have occured. So they raise the price. 'Have to' he tells his employee customers. He has to allow for payment of the governments two thirds and the students one third. So naturally it is increased by the full three thirds and a little bit. The little bit is more as the amounts handled are bigger, more insurance in case of theft- the amounts increase his anxiety just a little more for the business so he wants a reward for his stress etc.... In the next pay period all the prices are up for everything nearly in that neighbourhood. The student has to pay in the increases three times what he receives in the hand. He has lost out fully by appearing to receive only half in buying power than what she had been led to expect by the entry in her bank book. She was a little disappointed. In effect by such mechanisms her money goes less further all the time until she deliberately stops buying and starts saving. The savings rate however barely keeps pace with inflation. Yet the Government tends to miss all that. Their receipts appear up. Until the enforced slowdown in expenditure by the student employee contributes to the overall slowdown in the economy. This takes a little time.

So far this is an honest account and Government responses of printing more money are not indulged. The economic affect however is one of disappointment. the Student employee expects a change not small change. In effect the student is worse off. Because the 67% taxes work not only on the increase portion but on the turtles all the way down too. The government gets 67% of everything, the student experiences only ever 33% percent of their wage and instinctively or intuitively feels/knows she is being as if 'cheated' out of her own fair effort. The shop owner has to risk more and when the slowdown occurs works harder to make the same relative 'spending power' money. Over time the tax receipts are down also.  A cruel or stupid government increases taxes. Grinding their voter more and accusing the shop of withholding money or such. The shop goes out of business faster. Receipts are down more rapidly. The student gives up her studies and commits suicide. Sad result of the death culture too. Death breeds death. As in Mr Zdenek Hanzlik case. Sometimes Governments can be foolish. I am wondering about that smirk on Prime Minister Bill English' face. He smiled as Ian Wedde once said in a poem 'as if he knew something you did not' - maybe this is it. Wise handling of these things would forestall his soon comeback. I think he thinks you do not know these things and have missed the smaller scenario details and their second order consequences. I know some Labour people. Like their heart just not an admirer of their thinking.

He is thinking you'll muff it.

On exactly these things -lack of second order thinking. Partly I do to.

Printing money is a temptation. Don't.

 Slowly starve the greedy cities. No business puts money into a non-performing enterprise. Put money into the regions like Southland. Where money is being made. Make, yes make the new unemployed go to Southland to pick up their benefits and apply for jobs. Get your best WINZ staff down there to sign them up. They have to collect it there. Travel tickets only etc. Bobs your Uncle new workers! Old ones would grizzle and object. Invest in profitable ventures like Warren Buffet; do not flog any dead horses; bury them! Be ruthless. It is cruel to be kind. Send the most attractive solo mums down there six months later- the newer ones on similar basis. Build hostels near work camps etc. Jobsites and so on. Think like Machiavelli not like a f**king socialist! More like the Art of War than Hilary bloody Clinton the loser. More like Stalin than icepick brain Trotsky. Be cunning in your kindness.

Plan on preparing the country for the return of biggest ever oil. Talk only to the market players in oil- the buzz will circulate. Above all ignore the cities; put on your best frock etc and talk talk talk- just don't say anything. promise nothing quotable- when the money flows into the regions the effect will be spectacular. Small money makes bigger impact in regions, well put big money into regions- harbours ready for oil rig construction- those big oceans require big stuff- really big stuff- we are tallkinfg trillions here- theyt are out looking for maga trillions NOT billions- thats OLD thinking. TRILLIONS; TRILLIONS-wealth beyond our wildest dreams. Oil rig islands tethered to the sea floor as big as Cities, As big as suburbs- as big as anything ever built- only a hundred times bigger. So big that when you come over the hill and see Dunedin. You'll see a huge floating drum dwarfing the entire city. A trillion dollar rig. A large as a Cityscape. Tethered to the ocean depths. It is only one kilometre down- nothing to these new monsters. Starve the bloody cities and do it!  Think of our cut on that having it take up the entire basin. South Island closed to all other sea traffic. Sold out entire to these biggies. Sucks to the lousy opposition. That mad glassy eyed mercury vapour plume. She is poisoning our complete future. What do you think we were put here for?

 How Does It Work in Practice? Multiplier effected also.

Equal Pay


In the Light of the real Tax Rate


What Is the REAL TAX RATE?


First, some stories to set the scene


NOW-Tell Me the Details




Intuition is not always Right.


Rhetoric Derpends on First Order Thinking; Not on more Complex (But Still Comprehendable) Thinking.


How then to do what We Intend to Do?

Higher Real Productivity

Do not just announce false 'productivity' 'gains' as real productivity

What is productivity?



Ahhh! There's the Rub.


You Have to Become a Conservative.


Conservatives Conserve.


Kings Establish


Phillip O'Sullivan is probably one of the few living New Zealanders who has lived abroad for six months on his own money amoung the most lethal Marxist Military Regime in Asia at the time. Surviving shakedowns, shadowed by Security Officers, and airport detainments along the way. Despite this and fundamentally differing in developing his political and economic ideas he remained fairly sympathetic to the Myanmar Government and its aims.


What do you think?

Send us feedback!