• Idiot policy from NZ First

    From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Mon Apr 20 20:18:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail
    outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New
    World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the
    Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Mutley@mutley2000@hotmail.com to nz.general on Tue Apr 21 08:39:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail
    outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New
    World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the
    Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Tony@lizandtony@orcon.net.nz to nz.general on Tue Apr 21 06:14:16 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail
    outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New >>World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the
    Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it.
    It defies logic for me.
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gordon@Gordon@leaf.net.nz to nz.general on Wed Apr 22 08:14:33 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2026-04-21, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail
    outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New >>>World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the
    Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it.
    It defies logic for me.

    Instead of taking on three, you attack, the other two, then you attack the remaining one, having weakened the the group of three,
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kerr Avon@avon@bbs.nz.invalid to nz.general on Fri Apr 24 14:16:29 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 20:18:04 +1200, Crash wrote:


    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the Australian-owned
    Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    If I were cynical I'd say they had done a deal with Woolworths.

    It's not lost on me that the tobacco industry seemed to do well out of NZ First.
    --
    Agency News | news.bbs.nz
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Sat Apr 25 12:24:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 22 Apr 2026 08:14:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2026-04-21, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail >>>>outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New >>>>World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the
    Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it.
    It defies logic for me.

    Instead of taking on three, you attack, the other two, then you attack the >remaining one, having weakened the the group of three,

    Not sure what you are referencing here. There is currently a
    supermarket duopoly - Foodstuffs (a co-operative of store owners) and Woolworths (owned by the Australian company of the same name).

    NZ First policy is unbalanced and unhinged as I said in my original
    post.
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gordon@Gordon@leaf.net.nz to nz.general on Sun Apr 26 03:45:28 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 2026-04-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    On 22 Apr 2026 08:14:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2026-04-21, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail >>>>>outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New >>>>>World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the >>>>>Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it.
    It defies logic for me.

    Instead of taking on three, you attack, the other two, then you attack the >>remaining one, having weakened the the group of three,

    Not sure what you are referencing here. There is currently a
    supermarket duopoly - Foodstuffs (a co-operative of store owners) and Woolworths (owned by the Australian company of the same name).

    NZ First policy is unbalanced and unhinged as I said in my original
    post.

    Good point Crash. My point was that it maybe better/easier to take on a part rather the the whole "pack".

    Winston's proposal is certainly somewhat illocial and will be seen as not
    the most reasoned.

    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Crash@nogood@dontbother.invalid to nz.general on Sun Apr 26 16:30:45 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On 26 Apr 2026 03:45:28 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2026-04-25, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    On 22 Apr 2026 08:14:33 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

    On 2026-04-21, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
    Mutley <mutley2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
    Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/592865/time-to-do-something-about-supermarkets-consumer-says?cid=newsletter

    So their policy is to compel Foodstuffs (a co-operative of retail >>>>>>outlet owners to be broken up, trampling on the property rights of New >>>>>>World, Paknsav and 4 Square owners, while allowing the >>>>>>Australian-owned Woolworths to continue untouched.

    What unhinged idiots think that this would be a good idea?

    Perhaps the Godfather and the Matua don't like them.
    Yep crazy. No doubt Consumer NZ and Com Com will be right behind it. >>>> It defies logic for me.

    Instead of taking on three, you attack, the other two, then you attack the >>>remaining one, having weakened the the group of three,

    Not sure what you are referencing here. There is currently a
    supermarket duopoly - Foodstuffs (a co-operative of store owners) and
    Woolworths (owned by the Australian company of the same name).

    NZ First policy is unbalanced and unhinged as I said in my original
    post.

    Good point Crash. My point was that it maybe better/easier to take on a part >rather the the whole "pack".

    How do you take on the duopoly by attacking just one of the two
    companies? This involves trampling on the property rights of those
    owners. If Foodstuffs is broken up by forcing the PaknSav owners to
    exit Foodstuffs, how would you feel if you are an owner that paid to
    join Foodstuffs and now has to get together with other PaknSav owners
    to form a new supply and distribution company? Perhaps these owners
    would prefer instead to do a deal with Woolworths, thereby simply
    'rearranging the deckchairs' of the duopoly.

    Winston's proposal is certainly somewhat illocial and will be seen as not
    the most reasoned.

    That is because the duopoly member being left untouched is the one
    that is owned offshore. How is that a sane option?
    --
    Crash McBash
    --- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2