Film a plea for reform of capitalism

Karl du Fresne is wrong in his attack on the important film, Capital in the 21st Century, based on Thomas Piketty’s book (Doco ignores inconvenient facts, Oct 31).

He accuses the film of being ‘‘a masterpiece of propagandist’s art’’ because it says capitalism is bad, giving no credit for the benefits it has brought mankind.

The film does not say that. It traces economic history, showing the huge material advances, but demonstrating that, over time, wealth in an industrial society tends inevitably to very unequal distribution. In the past, depressions, wars, financial collapses, social policies, have corrected this to some degree.

Piketty states that in a globalised, postindustrial world, uncontrolled financial markets and powerful multinationals, this process of achieving a more fair distribution of wealth is no longer possible. It is also impossible to create new jobs to employ people displaced by mechanisation, as was done in the past.

He asks what has to be done to make sure the economy as we know it can serve humankind in the future. The current system cannot survive and must change. That is why the film is called Capitalism in the 21st Century. Not an attack but a serious plea for reform. Obvious, surely. Russell Armitage, Hamilton

Time for history later

Whilst I applaud the idea of making New Zealand history a compulsory subject in schools, I do not believe the time is now.

We risk having a whole generation of young people with a skewed view of history. In the present political climate a very sanitised view of the Ma¯ ori side of our story is inevitable.

Recently a very good example of this involved the 250-year celebration of Captain Cook’s arrival. Much was made of the nine Ma¯ ori who were shot but not one commentator mentioned what the Ma¯ ori were doing when they were shot. No interpretation of a possible misunderstanding of the situation between the Ma¯ ori and the seamen was offered.

Personally I think the problem lies in the fact that we still have, despite two independent inquiries finding they were unjustified, seven Ma¯ ori seats in Parliament.

Each of the two main political parties sees these as the possible difference between being in government and being in opposition, therefore neither is

prepared to scrap them. Neither party, on any claim, is prepared to say to Ma¯ ori, ‘‘No, that is not a fact’’. Each appears to believe that by throwing the modern equivalent of beads and blankets at Ma¯ ori their party will win the Ma¯ ori seats.

Both European and Ma¯ ori committed and suffered atrocities, but I fear our students will only be told one side of the story.

Reg Fowles, Waikanae

Barry inconsistent

Interesting how Lower Hutt Mayor Campbell Barry was championing intensification throughout Lower Hutt last Monday, before his council’s ratification of District Plan Change 43.

But in September, during the election campaign, he was reported as ‘‘fighting tooth and nail’’ to prevent development of a central Wainuiomata reserve – a proposition that ticks almost every box in terms of its suitability for housing and densification, what with its wide frontages; proximity to existing infrastructure and transport; near nil effect on nearby residential amenity values; the ability to design dwellings of diverse sizes with the minimisation of detrimental impacts on each other; and, to top it all off, the ability to build more affordable homes on land the council already holds in one of the more affordable suburbs of the city, all the while supporting the struggling adjacent local business community.

While the loss of a ‘‘reserve’’ should be rightly debated, Barry’s ‘‘No’’ is perverse.

So is there a housing crisis or not and/ or is this just another ‘‘Climate Emergency’’-type pronouncement where the talk and the walk take different paths? Richard Arlidge, Lower Hutt

Out of order on ‘boomer’

I could wear ‘‘OK boomer’’ if those who use it weren’t going to so much trouble to justify it. It’s out of order – grow a little character and admit the obvious (Give MPs a ‘heckle jar’, Nov 8).

As far as I can tell, ‘‘OK boomer’’ means ‘‘I don’t need to take what you said seriously because you’re a baby boomer’’. Just plain ageist and rude. Those who defend it say it means, ‘‘I don’t need to take what you said seriously because you’re a baby boomer and some baby boomers don’t argue constructively’’.

Ageist, rude and stupid to blame all for the acts of some.

Gavan O’Farrell, Waterloo

When sweet turns sour

Thank goodness there are dedicated bodies out there looking after our wellbeing. Leading the charge is the Advertising Standards Authority, which has upheld a complaint that an advertisement declaring that ‘‘Ice cream makes U happy’’ was irresponsible, saying that the link between icecream and happiness ‘‘could undermine the health and wellbeing of others’’ (Icecream ad ‘irresponsible’, Nov 8). Heavens!

Out of interest I went to its website and had a look at some other decisions made by the authority. One caught my eye and was concerned with a song’s lyrics, which included such lines as ‘‘I’ll chain you up, I’ll make you mine, I’ll keep you locked downstairs with all the bugs and all the gnats, I’ll feed you rodent hair, I’ll wait until the sun comes up, then I’ll poke and prod you more.’’

The authority failed to uphold a complaint made about these lyrics, saying that ‘‘the song’s satirical nature and upbeat style reduced the potential for the darker tone of the lyrics to cause harm’’.

So these lyrics are fine, but saying that icecream makes you happy isn’t?

Totally predictable drivel from an authority that should have more pressing matters to attend to.

John McDowall, Featherston

I was astounded to read that a shop owner had been ordered to remove an advertisement stating ‘‘Ice cream makes U happy’’, as it could potentially undermine the health and wellbeing of consumers.

The article appeared in a newspaper advertising airline tickets, cruises and alcohol, as well as including an article about a TV programme about baking sugary cakes, all of which are either bad for one’s health or the planet. Complaints should start pouring in to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Anyway, I enjoy icecream but I guess it is not supposed to make me happy.

John Whitty, Aro Valley

Some naked truths

Verity Johnson claims ‘‘we all take nudes [photos]. Everyone who has a camera phone takes nudes’’ (Nude photos aren’t the problem: spitefulness is, Nov 8).

Her article normalises personal immodesty. Apparently genuine modesty has died in the camera-phone generation.

Verity says everyone’s behaving like porn-paparazzi in each other’s lives. Untrue of course, but the answer’s obvious – distrust everyone who asks for nude photos: why would they want them, except for dishonest purposes?

Within a discreet, honest, and kind relationship, a loyal partner can see the other person nude anytime. Transitory relationships have a lower level of honesty. Porn photos are often a way of exploiting the relationship when one partner is secretly about to move on. Phillip Rex Robinson, Christchurch [abridged]

Owning a share in tragedy

In his piece on Erebus (Air NZ’s greatest tragedy, Nov 8), Michael Wright states that Robert Muldoon was ‘‘the shareholding minister’’ for Air New Zealand, implying some SIS-related significance in that.

Back in the 70s there was no such concept. It arrived much later with the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 after Muldoon was gone. Until then, seven specific Treasury officials each held a share in the airline.

Dave Smith, Tawa