Why is billionaire involvement good when its the left but bad when its the right?


Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The thread centers on New Zealand's upcoming election, primarily debating the economic management and policy differences between the center-left Labour government and center-right National/ACT opposition. Key criticisms target Labour's fiscal stewardship, citing ballooning government expenditure #7#272, housing unaffordability, and unfulfilled promises like KiwiBuild and dental care expansion #16#12. A user #7 highlighted Labour's annual 9% spending growth versus 1.5% under previous governments, arguing this fueled inflation. National's tax-cut policy faced scrutiny over funding gaps and legality, with user #215 questioning Luxon's reliance on "trust me" assurances.
Leadership competence emerged as a critical theme, particularly in later posts. Luxon drew heavy criticism after a contentious interview where he struggled to defend policy details #194#199#211, while Willis faced backlash for her economic credentials. Hipkins garnered fleeting praise for articulation but was ultimately seen as representing poor governmental outcomes #45#119. A trusted user #308 presented expert economic analysis contradicting Treasury optimism. Infrastructure issues—like Wellington's water crisis and the dental school staffing shortage—were cited as examples of systemic mismanagement #235#12. Notable policy debates included road-user charges for EVs #220, immigration impacts on rents #299, and coalition scenarios involving NZ First #182#258. Early fringe discussions on candidates' rugby allegiances gave way to substantive policy critiques, culminating in grim Treasury forecasts discussed in posts #271#304#308. User #168 also revealed concerns about Labour rushing regulatory changes to entrench policies pre-election.
Economic Policies, Housing Crisis, Leadership Competence
Why is billionaire involvement good when its the left but bad when its the right?
Just goes to show left & right are an illusion. Try to tell 'em and they call you Judas and say you killed their messiah.Why is billionaire involvement good when its the left but bad when its the right?![]()
![]()
Your whole argument breaks down when the govt is drowning in a long term systemic budget deficit.Small reminder about neoliberalism and the agenda this government is following:
From Noam Chomsky in 2011
View attachment 10864
The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival
The Noam Chomsky Website.chomsky.info
Just goes to show left & right are an illusion. Try to tell 'em and they call you Judas and say you killed their messiah.
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo_aK5JqfUc
The poor arent funding much now are they..The rich fund both parties and that should be the problem!
The class war is about to go full guillotineThe rich fund both parties and that should be the problem!
I have never seen so many homeless in my years! It's a disgrace how our country has fallen!The class war is about to go full guillotine
We're close to the end of our rope comrade, a change is gonna comeI have never seen so many homeless in my years! It's a disgrace how our country has fallen!
Drugs.I have never seen so many homeless in my years! It's a disgrace how our country has fallen!
It’s simply universality. Karma if you will.The thing about that NYC guy is he was a rich kid that lived a life of privilege. His actions weren’t that of some valiant Robin Hood. Another way to look at it was he was a spoiled prince that was told “no” and couldn’t deal with it
Makes me cringe when losers hold him up as some sort of hero for shooting a CEO / father / accountant in the back
Drugs are the end point not the starting point.Drugs.
Directly linked to crime, homelessness, health system issues, mental health issues, family breakdowns, etc, etc.
I didn’t really care either way about legalising recreational cannabis at the time but as the years go by Im beginning to strongly think we need as many disincentives to any gateway drugs as possible.
You should start with alcohol. Very dangerous drug and the biggest detrimental impact on society but socially accepted.Drugs.
Directly linked to crime, homelessness, health system issues, mental health issues, family breakdowns, etc, etc.
I didn’t really care either way about legalising recreational cannabis at the time but as the years go by Im beginning to strongly think we need as many disincentives to any gateway drugs as possible.
If he’s angry with the company, he should be angry with the shareholdersIt’s simply universality. Karma if you will.
Brian Thompson was a piece of shit. Did he “deserve” to be shot and killed? Not my judgement to make, but bad things happen to good people, of which Brian wasn’t.
Nice appeal with the CEO / father / accountant line, though, nearly as benign as a vegetarian painter.
Rubbish. If Brian was some universal force for good, reknown for trying to help people, the Mario Bro wouldn’t have slotted him.If he’s angry with the company, he should be angry with the shareholders
The CEO is just some guy hired to make money for shareholders. He’s not some evil renegade acting on his own accord. He’ll get replaced by another person with the exact same remit
Disagree.If he’s angry with the company, he should be angry with the shareholders
The CEO is just some guy hired to make money for shareholders. He’s not some evil renegade acting on his own accord. He’ll get replaced by another person with the exact same remit
If he came up with the system himself to systematically decline as many claims as possible, then he very well could be.He’s not some evil renegade acting on his own accord.
If killing him doesn’t achieve anything, then he’s the wrong targetIf you became CEO of a health insurance company and it has a policy of trying to get people to die before paying out, or out right refusing claims, you have 3 choices, keep it, change it, quit.