Site Meter

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Greed personified - Keeping Stock



"What Labour and the Greens are proposing is little short of economic terrorism, for wholly spiteful political gain" - Keeping Stock.

Someone's getting very snarky about his proposed "investment" in high-priced electricity. Inventory2 at Keeping Stock's foaming mightily about the Labour/Green proposal to provide affordable electricity to all New Zealanders, because it threatens the profits he was counting on extracting from the long-suffering New Zealand public. "Terrorists" he calls those political parties who don't subscribe to his "grab all you can get" philosophy. Where's the terror?, I ask myself, before realising that it's right there, in the eyes of Inventory2 as he sees his money-grab slipping rapidly away from his pudgy little hands (I'm employing some poetic license here, just for the fun of it. I've not seen his hands, but I doubt they're like those of Jesus :-)

He goes on (oh, how he goes on!):

"Where Labour and the Greens are concerned, getting power is all that matters. The ethics of getting there cease to exist, and the end justifies whatever means are required, be they huge bribes, or promises that can never be kept."

Phew! That's getting very close to the edge of Monty Python's universe (admittedly a far more interesting place than Planet Key, but still a concern for Mrs Inventory, I'm sure!).

Lastly, Inventory2 really spits the dummy:

"When I apply for shares later today or tomorrow, I will be applying for double the value of MRP shares than I had originally intended."

Double the value!!! Crumbs! Knee-jerk super-plus and that'll teach'em! Of course that might mean he buys 2 shares, rather than the one he planned to splash out on. Either way, a thoroughly wobble-headed reaction from our drenched-in-blue blogger, Inventory2. 

27 comments:

Armchair Critic said...

Peter Jackson made a series of movies about someone who was consumed by and obsessed with a particular possession. Regular John helped increase Peter's profits, by dipping into our back pockets to provide a subsidy.
Does this mean INV2's true identity is revealed? I hope not, because things didn't turn out well for Gollum.

robertguyton said...

Gollum was once a sweet-natured hobbit, but.

Armchair Critic said...

Peter once made good movies. I still love Bad Taste. As he made more money his movies became worse. I'd really like to see Man Alone made into a movie, but Peter would undoubtedly butcher the story.
John was once a state house kid of a single parent. In many ways the money ruined him too.
Poor old INV2 seems to be following down the same path.

Shane Pleasance said...

What I both adore and despise all at the same time is how you lefties and righties all back your philosophical corners with such gusto.

It would amuse me if it was not so tragic and ruinous.

robertguyton said...

Whereas the Libertarians are open to all ideas equally and have no 'corner'?
Those I see engaging in debate elsewhere must have missed that directive from Lib HQ. Still, you, Shane, at least, are un-cornered. Aren't you?

Shane Pleasance said...

Ours is as ever a moral standpoint supporting the rights of the smallest minority - the individual.

At its core is the non agression principle.

Simple and beautiful.

robertguyton said...

Seems selfish. Is it?

Shane Pleasance said...

Rationally so, absolutely.

robertguyton said...

What's the Lib position on the natural environment?

Shane Pleasance said...

Generally that the government has a role protecting the property rights of the citizens.
We support private ownership as a means of avoiding the tradgedy of the commons.

This is also a link showing some of the common denominators between those of us in favour of the non aggression principle and environmentalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_libertarianism

robertguyton said...

The Tragedy of the Commons cannot be averted through private ownership, despite your sincere hopes, Shane. There are better ways.

robertguyton said...

Rather, the Commons are/is completely destroyed through private ownership.

Shane Pleasance said...

By definition it is.

robertguyton said...

So there's no place in the Lib world for Commons? That's a great shame (and flaw).

Armchair Critic said...

I have occasionally wondered what libertarians think of limited liability companies, especially such companies with multiple owners. It seemed to have the potential to conflict with the whole emphasis on individualism. I'm still at the point of being to lazy to Google it, but interested enough to ignore the possibility I might be asking a stupid question.

Shane Pleasance said...

Finally a good question! Thanks Armchair. Many Libertarians are against the fake identity and (possible) avoidance of responsibility that is the LLC and its equivalent overseas.

Similarly there are many very hot debates about intellectual property and patents.

Furthermore, we are wholly opposed to the power it has to grow with support from crony governments to where it can influence, capture and monopolise industries to the expense of competition and the individual.

Robert, I suppose 'commons' (curse those commoners!) can and would occur. We would be against the compulsory use of force through taxation to 'protect' said land.

No reason why groups cannot voluntarily support care of common land - and they do.
Also, do not forget the power of a community to ostracise polluters, and of consumers to boycott companies.

It is in everybody's interest to preserve our environment - our own rational self interest.

It is in unethical to use force to drive your own personal agenda at the expense of the individual.

That is tyranny.

Shane Pleasance said...

This is Sean Gabb, Director of the UK Libertarian Alliance on LLC, for example - http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc152.htm

robertguyton said...

Seems there's plenty of tyranny about these days, Shane. I'm one for 'the power of a community to ostracise polluters' - they don't go easily though, do they :-)

Shane Pleasance said...

Could not agree more.

Armchair Critic said...

I suspect a libertarian utopia would be quite nice, Shane. Like other utopias, I hold serious doubts about whether it is achievable.

Shane Pleasance said...

No one makes any claims of Utopia, just philosophically sound and with less state mandated exploitation and force.

Achievable? They said that about freeing slaves, and gasp, somehow cotton still got picked.

Other than a few odd rainbows, the sky has not falled with the government 'granting' gays the right to marry.

Voluntaryists and Free minded men certainly do believe in the good of man.

Shane Pleasance said...

The sky has not fallen. It has falled though.

robertguyton said...

Where is the real-world example of Libertariana? I've searched my maps, vellum and Google...

Suz said...

North-east of Narnia, where's that wardrobe when you need it?

Shane Pleasance said...

Hang on, I will have to ask someone. "Hey Clint..."

robertguyton said...

"North-east of Narnia"?
That'll be Eastwood, eh Shane.

Shane Pleasance said...

Who else?

And where else?