NZers are freaking out about asset sales. I can understand why. While we have financial challenges, do we want to sell our assets to get out of trouble?
Yet, at the same time, one of the counter-arguments is that the floating of a portion of the assets is at least to an extent a good thing for NZ, giving NZers something to invest in. This would move investments away from our incessant obsession with investment in property, or off shore. Iwi and others may find this helpful. I find this a good argument to a point. That said, do we need to sell off 49% of an asset at all?
My question then is this, why sell so much of any state owned asset? Why not place a limit on the amount of an asset that we float, say 25% or 33%, and why not limit the amount one investor can own at even lower than 10%, say 5%? We could float far more assets then, retain control, put the money to use to pay down debt to safeguard us against the effects of global recession etc. Then, if the situation permits, we can buy them back if need be?
Perhaps this would allow NZers to feel secure in NZ control and ownership, while allowing NZers to invest in their own country, but with safeguards.
Of course, I would also agree with the right’s desire to strip down government as far as possible, without of course gutting the care for the really poor and marginalised. I would also support ensuring that the money from the government for alleviation of poverty and need, actually gets to those in need, and not down the loo on drugs and booze etc.
I would also agree though with a tax system that ensured that the really wealthy pay their way in terms of taxation.
But would this alleviate some of the asset sales concern?
Perhaps there is some problem with this economically, that I am too dumb to see—that is not unlikely. I can see this could lower the market value of the sale, as it could put some off, and lower demand.
Still, maybe it is a good middle way. Just wondering? Any thoughts out there on this?
Yet, at the same time, one of the counter-arguments is that the floating of a portion of the assets is at least to an extent a good thing for NZ, giving NZers something to invest in. This would move investments away from our incessant obsession with investment in property, or off shore. Iwi and others may find this helpful. I find this a good argument to a point. That said, do we need to sell off 49% of an asset at all?
My question then is this, why sell so much of any state owned asset? Why not place a limit on the amount of an asset that we float, say 25% or 33%, and why not limit the amount one investor can own at even lower than 10%, say 5%? We could float far more assets then, retain control, put the money to use to pay down debt to safeguard us against the effects of global recession etc. Then, if the situation permits, we can buy them back if need be?
Perhaps this would allow NZers to feel secure in NZ control and ownership, while allowing NZers to invest in their own country, but with safeguards.
Of course, I would also agree with the right’s desire to strip down government as far as possible, without of course gutting the care for the really poor and marginalised. I would also support ensuring that the money from the government for alleviation of poverty and need, actually gets to those in need, and not down the loo on drugs and booze etc.
I would also agree though with a tax system that ensured that the really wealthy pay their way in terms of taxation.
But would this alleviate some of the asset sales concern?
Perhaps there is some problem with this economically, that I am too dumb to see—that is not unlikely. I can see this could lower the market value of the sale, as it could put some off, and lower demand.
Still, maybe it is a good middle way. Just wondering? Any thoughts out there on this?
Comments
I think limiting the amount a single investor can purchase will be a deterrent to some if not most overseas investors.
I think Labour indulged in dubious 'numbers' and I think they deliberately choose not to mention there was a limit on what % was to be sold of assets. (Goffs assertion about Police cancelling intakes was another example where he should have been nailed)
I would not characterise 'National' as the 'right' in the sense that it is often used in American politics, I would say both major parties are fairly central, NZ First stand for nothing except a meal ticked for Winston, and I think the Greens have some good points but they are anti-business and if they continue to grow we are in trouble as a country.
Woke up Monday morning . . . nothing had changed, National still the Government and the Opposition will still argue about everything whether it is good or not just for the sake of it!!
If you have any suggestions, please share. Thanks!
My blog :: calories burned walking