Thanks to the hive for reminding us of this in a critically important year:
Clark's not on solid ground when it comes to hidden agendas. As deputy Prime Minister and Labour's key strategist at the 1990 election she helped perpetrate the big lie of that campaign.
In 1990, New Zealand was teetering towards economic recession. But the Labour Cabinet kept claiming right up to election day that the Government's accounts were in surplus.
National Prime Minister Jim Bolger's plans for a decent society were scuppered when he was confronted by officials just one day after the election with news of a serious fiscal crisis that they had kept secret under Labour's orders.
The Bank of New Zealand was about to go belly-up, something senior Labour ministers had known about for weeks, and the Treasury was forecasting a $3.7 billion deficit for the 1991/92 year which would blow out to a $5.2 billion deficit by 1993/94 unless drastic actions were taken.
Bolger's Cabinet had to cut costs to avert a major credit rating downgrade for New Zealand.
These are the conditions that led to the mother of all budgets.
But beneficiaries were not the only ones to feel pain.
New Zealand businesses folded as the recession bit and many Kiwis lost their jobs and were forced into major reductions in their living standards. It was a horrible time because the country was broke.
I'm sure we would rather have been prepared for the hard times ahead by a truthful Government instead of being conned by the snow-job perpetrated by Clark and her senior colleagues at the 1990 election.
Perhaps our Finance Minister trained as he is in economic history will reminisce of these times in the election year ahead?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
What should be the basis for identifying which breeds should be included in Schedule 4?
Only those breeds able to be statistically shown to be more likely to attack than any other attributable factor (EG: Neutered / Chained / Owned by Beneficiary) should be included on Schedule 4.
Furthermore breed specific bans should only be implemented where a breed can be shown to be more likely to cause major harm or death than the highest risk racial group. Otherwise that racial group should have the same restrictions applied to them first.
I would also refer to the message by Associate Professor Kevin Stafford (Institute of Veterinary Animal and Biomedical Sciences) which states that:
In the late 1980s a list of breeds involved in 40 serious dogs attacks on children in Adelaide included German shepherd dogs (10), German shepherd crossbreds (5), rottweilers (7), pitbull terrier-type dogs (4), Siberian huskies (3) and one akita, doberman pinscher, labrador retriever, chow chow and Australian shepherd. Pitbull terrier-type dogs have been involved in many of the recently reported dog attacks and are the target for those promoting breed control legislation. But dog aggression was a public problem in New Zealand before this type of terrier became common and some of the breeds listed above may come under scrutiny in the near future. In a 1995 study of veterinary opinion in New Zealand, rottweilers were considered much more aggressive in the veterinary clinic than any other breed of dog. Intact male dogs are also much more likely to be involved in dog attacks than females or desexed animals.
This makes it critically important that dog breeds are assessed on evidence; not popular opinion. It is the focus on "bad breeds" which leads to the number of attacks by Labrodors and Jack Russels; both rarely focused on in "bad dog breed" lists - but frequently in the news stories of dog attacks.
Furthermore breed specific bans should only be implemented where a breed can be shown to be more likely to cause major harm or death than the highest risk racial group. Otherwise that racial group should have the same restrictions applied to them first.
I would also refer to the message by Associate Professor Kevin Stafford (Institute of Veterinary Animal and Biomedical Sciences) which states that:
In the late 1980s a list of breeds involved in 40 serious dogs attacks on children in Adelaide included German shepherd dogs (10), German shepherd crossbreds (5), rottweilers (7), pitbull terrier-type dogs (4), Siberian huskies (3) and one akita, doberman pinscher, labrador retriever, chow chow and Australian shepherd. Pitbull terrier-type dogs have been involved in many of the recently reported dog attacks and are the target for those promoting breed control legislation. But dog aggression was a public problem in New Zealand before this type of terrier became common and some of the breeds listed above may come under scrutiny in the near future. In a 1995 study of veterinary opinion in New Zealand, rottweilers were considered much more aggressive in the veterinary clinic than any other breed of dog. Intact male dogs are also much more likely to be involved in dog attacks than females or desexed animals.
This makes it critically important that dog breeds are assessed on evidence; not popular opinion. It is the focus on "bad breeds" which leads to the number of attacks by Labrodors and Jack Russels; both rarely focused on in "bad dog breed" lists - but frequently in the news stories of dog attacks.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Who can really blame him?
Unfortunately that is my first reaction to the news that a 50 year old man has been arrested in connection with the fatal stabbing of a 15 year old in Manurewa this morning - after a "tagging incident". (hattip: NZ Herald)
Ultimately, no, that can't be a condoned reaction to someone spray painting your fence - but until the justice system can start placing some real responsibility on those vandalizing other's property I can't help but see an increase in vigilantism against those caught. Especially when the results of 9 years of Labour's bleeding heart response to crime is becoming evident - 10 murders in 2008; and we're only 27 days in!
And looking at the nature of those 10 their failure is made even starker by the ages of those involved in most cases; between 14 and 20. Look closely at that, subtract 9 and figure out what period of political influence has been responsible for the formative period in these murderer's lives.
Even those Liberals starting to click still don't seem to really get it though. Listening to Kerry Woodham and her "Sunday Panel" this morning one at first thinks they start to see the connection; realising that "something must be done" and that the Liberal approach to justice is failing. However they then start on about how many of these youths were "doomed in the womb" due to parental drug use etc. And this is the problem. (Not the drug use although that is a major problem). Until we assign responsibility to those making the actions, they are powerless to work their way out of their positions. While we excuse them for actions, we take away their power over themselves to change.
Of course someone with a hard life, or drug affected in the womb is going to find life harder, and more difficult to break the cycle - but it doesn't make them any less responsible for their own actions. As if they are powerless and not responsible as many soft justice types would contend; then they should be executed at birth. If growing up in an underprivileged situation means that one is destined to a life of crime; society should use a bullet and be done with it - their past is unchangeable, so if their past is to blame they are incurable?
I don't believe so; which is why their past cannot be blamed. They are to blame.
Ultimately, no, that can't be a condoned reaction to someone spray painting your fence - but until the justice system can start placing some real responsibility on those vandalizing other's property I can't help but see an increase in vigilantism against those caught. Especially when the results of 9 years of Labour's bleeding heart response to crime is becoming evident - 10 murders in 2008; and we're only 27 days in!
And looking at the nature of those 10 their failure is made even starker by the ages of those involved in most cases; between 14 and 20. Look closely at that, subtract 9 and figure out what period of political influence has been responsible for the formative period in these murderer's lives.
Even those Liberals starting to click still don't seem to really get it though. Listening to Kerry Woodham and her "Sunday Panel" this morning one at first thinks they start to see the connection; realising that "something must be done" and that the Liberal approach to justice is failing. However they then start on about how many of these youths were "doomed in the womb" due to parental drug use etc. And this is the problem. (Not the drug use although that is a major problem). Until we assign responsibility to those making the actions, they are powerless to work their way out of their positions. While we excuse them for actions, we take away their power over themselves to change.
Of course someone with a hard life, or drug affected in the womb is going to find life harder, and more difficult to break the cycle - but it doesn't make them any less responsible for their own actions. As if they are powerless and not responsible as many soft justice types would contend; then they should be executed at birth. If growing up in an underprivileged situation means that one is destined to a life of crime; society should use a bullet and be done with it - their past is unchangeable, so if their past is to blame they are incurable?
I don't believe so; which is why their past cannot be blamed. They are to blame.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
So when will the left get it?
Interesting, yet overall depressing figures just out from Statistics New Zealand (hattip: NZ Herald)
on Average Household income.
I just can't help but focus in on the statement:
Income from self-employment was down 24.5 per cent to $4213, from investments it was up 17.4 per cent to $3057, superannuation and war pensions rose 1.6 per cent to $3970, and government benefits were up 5.7 per cent to $3740
In particular; self-employment down 24.5%, Government Benefits up 5.7%
One would think that the Government and the Labour party would finally be able to see what many keep telling them: they are killing the entrepreneurial and no 8 wire spirit of this country.
By destroying any possible reward for risk taking endeavors they are shepherding more people into "jobs" with existing corporates; rather than supporting those that would actually help to make a difference through creation of wealth - instead of selling time.
I'm sure they will crow about the increases in wages and salaries; but at a fundamental level this will never help us reverse our declining balance of payments, nor declining levels of corporate ownership. Only by supporting risk with real return; and reducing the over subsidization of risk aversion will we make a change for the better.
Otherwise we keep channeling our productive funds to those who, by definition, are most incompetent in their use.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10479424
on Average Household income.
I just can't help but focus in on the statement:
Income from self-employment was down 24.5 per cent to $4213, from investments it was up 17.4 per cent to $3057, superannuation and war pensions rose 1.6 per cent to $3970, and government benefits were up 5.7 per cent to $3740
In particular; self-employment down 24.5%, Government Benefits up 5.7%
One would think that the Government and the Labour party would finally be able to see what many keep telling them: they are killing the entrepreneurial and no 8 wire spirit of this country.
By destroying any possible reward for risk taking endeavors they are shepherding more people into "jobs" with existing corporates; rather than supporting those that would actually help to make a difference through creation of wealth - instead of selling time.
I'm sure they will crow about the increases in wages and salaries; but at a fundamental level this will never help us reverse our declining balance of payments, nor declining levels of corporate ownership. Only by supporting risk with real return; and reducing the over subsidization of risk aversion will we make a change for the better.
Otherwise we keep channeling our productive funds to those who, by definition, are most incompetent in their use.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10479424
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Helen and Jeanette's Crazy EFB
The campaign just released by the IMVDA (Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association) on Tuesday stands to be a critical test of both supporters and opponents to the EFB - original and revised.
Because if both sides can peer through their own cognitive dissonance for just a few seconds we will be able to see exactly what a $300,000 campaign launched by a completely independent group to raise public awareness about an issue they feel strongly about looks like.
That's right - a campaign that strongly features leaders from 2 political parties so is in no doubt about it's political message, and that breaches the original EFB by a factor of 5, and is still 3 times larger than what would be allowed next year.
Now my prediction is this campaign - despite being bolstered by actual MSM attention to it - will still go mainly unnoticed by large swathes of the population, and won't be particularly intrusive.
And certainly will fall far short of "buying votes" of large sections of the community.
Which if the supporters of the EFB actually have any independent reasoning left is the point.
This campaign if performed in 1 1/2 months time would be illegal. The Labour Party and the inept supporters of this bill somehow think that the IMVDA by explaining their point of view on proposed law that intimately affects them is a threat to our democratic system.
Sorry - the only threat is by stopping them. I don't agree with their conclusions that they are promoting with this campaign, but to steal the words of others more esteemed; by God I'll defend their right to tell people about it.
Regardless of election year.
Because if both sides can peer through their own cognitive dissonance for just a few seconds we will be able to see exactly what a $300,000 campaign launched by a completely independent group to raise public awareness about an issue they feel strongly about looks like.
That's right - a campaign that strongly features leaders from 2 political parties so is in no doubt about it's political message, and that breaches the original EFB by a factor of 5, and is still 3 times larger than what would be allowed next year.
Now my prediction is this campaign - despite being bolstered by actual MSM attention to it - will still go mainly unnoticed by large swathes of the population, and won't be particularly intrusive.
And certainly will fall far short of "buying votes" of large sections of the community.
Which if the supporters of the EFB actually have any independent reasoning left is the point.
This campaign if performed in 1 1/2 months time would be illegal. The Labour Party and the inept supporters of this bill somehow think that the IMVDA by explaining their point of view on proposed law that intimately affects them is a threat to our democratic system.
Sorry - the only threat is by stopping them. I don't agree with their conclusions that they are promoting with this campaign, but to steal the words of others more esteemed; by God I'll defend their right to tell people about it.
Regardless of election year.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thumbs up Herald, and yet the cynic in me...
Great to see at least one member of the MSM finally pick up the EFB (Electoral Finance Bill) and give it the coverage that it deserves: Democracy Under Attack
And as expected David Farrar has also kicked off the initial "discussions" in the politically aware blogosphere
And yet the cynic in me can't help but focus in on the phrase (in the Herald editorial / front page):
They say this because it would be illegal in election year for any organisation other than a registered political party to spend more than $60,000 (perhaps a couple of full-page advertisements) to publicise a cause that might be deemed political.
and wonder if this is the only reason why they have finally reacted to this outrage.
Did someone at the Herald finally realise what a threat this was to their advertising budgets in the 12 months before the election? Especially given Labour's predilection for multi-million dollar TV campaigns over newspapers (probably something to do with the literacy of their typical voter...)?
And in fact isn't that what they should really be pointing out here as well - that the Labour party and Government departments will still be able to do a repeat of their $15 million dollar Working For Families (WFF) TV advertising before the election (You're better off with Labour [sic]), while opponents and critics wouldn't be able to afford a single timeslot?
But regardless of the reasons for the Granny to finally wake up, thank God they have and the sheeple of New Zealand may finally recognise the threat that is upon them
And as expected David Farrar has also kicked off the initial "discussions" in the politically aware blogosphere
And yet the cynic in me can't help but focus in on the phrase (in the Herald editorial / front page):
They say this because it would be illegal in election year for any organisation other than a registered political party to spend more than $60,000 (perhaps a couple of full-page advertisements) to publicise a cause that might be deemed political.
and wonder if this is the only reason why they have finally reacted to this outrage.
Did someone at the Herald finally realise what a threat this was to their advertising budgets in the 12 months before the election? Especially given Labour's predilection for multi-million dollar TV campaigns over newspapers (probably something to do with the literacy of their typical voter...)?
And in fact isn't that what they should really be pointing out here as well - that the Labour party and Government departments will still be able to do a repeat of their $15 million dollar Working For Families (WFF) TV advertising before the election (You're better off with Labour [sic]), while opponents and critics wouldn't be able to afford a single timeslot?
But regardless of the reasons for the Granny to finally wake up, thank God they have and the sheeple of New Zealand may finally recognise the threat that is upon them
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A thought which resonates
The best of a book is not the thought which it contains,but the thought which it suggests; just as the charm of music dwells not in the tones but in the echoes of our hearts. --Oliver Wendell Holmes
For me this suggests a "Song of Stone" by Ian Banks - a story which I could not unconditionally recommend; but would recommend to all that would know.
For me this suggests a "Song of Stone" by Ian Banks - a story which I could not unconditionally recommend; but would recommend to all that would know.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Reserve Bank announces changes to FX management
An interesting change announced by the Reserve Bank - in particular the obvious reference to "responding to crisis situations involving sharp falls in the NZ dollar."
One wonders whether this is mainly an announcement for effect, a real repositioning to give themselves more flexibility in the types of moves they have already tried, or an independent repositioning of their strategies.
Certainly it is obvious that the Bank has now realised that it will not be getting any help from the Government in terms of Labour curbing its inflationary policies - and that the Reserve Bank has realised that to continue hiking interest rates to counter this will irrevocably damage the export sector.
The Reserve Bank today announced changes to its financing and management
of New Zealand's foreign currency reserves.
The moves arise from a review of the Bank's balance sheet, announced in
its Statement of Intent in June 2006. The review was aimed at enabling
the Bank to manage its balance sheet to best meet monetary policy,
currency, liquidity management and foreign reserves requirements.
Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard said that for the last 20 years, the
Bank's foreign currency assets have been fully matched by foreign
currency liabilities.
"That was an unusual approach by international standards and we are now
moving in the direction of a more conventional approach," Dr Bollard
said.
In the future we will hold some portion of our foreign reserves on an
unhedged basis - an "open FX" position. This means that part of the
foreign reserves portfolio will be funded in New Zealand dollars rather
than in foreign currencies."
Dr Bollard said that the main reason for this new approach to foreign
exchange (FX) management is to give the Bank a more effective means of
responding to crisis situations involving sharp falls in the NZ dollar.
"In crisis situations it is of paramount importance that the Bank
retains access to foreign currency reserves. With a portion of our
reserves no longer borrowed from abroad, but funded internally, we will
become less dependent on international capital markets in times of
crisis.
"Also, the use of unhedged reserves in this situation will be less
costly and give rise to less additional risk than would be the case
using hedged reserves. Unhedged foreign reserves provide a more
effective form of insurance against a currency crisis."
The Bank's guidelines for operating in the foreign exchange market have
also been modified. Overt intervention intended to affect the exchange
rate directly may still occur. In addition, the Bank will be able to
more gradually accumulate or reduce its foreign exchange position when
the exchange rate is at extreme levels and unjustified by medium-term
economic fundamentals.
Dr Bollard said that the Bank's more passive FX transactions will not
necessarily be expected to directly affect the exchange rate.
"However, such transactions will allow the Bank to give concrete signals
regarding the extent to which the exchange rate is seen as over- or
under-valued. That may indirectly affect the exchange rate by
discouraging speculators from pushing the currency to extreme levels."
Because the interest rates on the Bank's New Zealand dollar borrowings
are higher than on foreign currency borrowing, the annual cost of
holding foreign reserves is expected to increase somewhat with the
change in approach.
The increased open FX position on the Bank's balance sheet is also
expected to result in greater variability in the Bank's net income, as a
result of foreign exchange gains and losses. However, the Bank's foreign
exchange positions could be expected to be profitable on average over
the medium term.
The Bank has been using and will continue to use its FX market
operations to lift the level of its unhedged reserves towards a new
long-run average level. The Bank publishes its open foreign exchange
position monthly on its website, with a lag of one month.
Background documents on this new policy are available on the Reserve
Bank and New Zealand Treasury's websites.
One wonders whether this is mainly an announcement for effect, a real repositioning to give themselves more flexibility in the types of moves they have already tried, or an independent repositioning of their strategies.
Certainly it is obvious that the Bank has now realised that it will not be getting any help from the Government in terms of Labour curbing its inflationary policies - and that the Reserve Bank has realised that to continue hiking interest rates to counter this will irrevocably damage the export sector.
The Reserve Bank today announced changes to its financing and management
of New Zealand's foreign currency reserves.
The moves arise from a review of the Bank's balance sheet, announced in
its Statement of Intent in June 2006. The review was aimed at enabling
the Bank to manage its balance sheet to best meet monetary policy,
currency, liquidity management and foreign reserves requirements.
Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard said that for the last 20 years, the
Bank's foreign currency assets have been fully matched by foreign
currency liabilities.
"That was an unusual approach by international standards and we are now
moving in the direction of a more conventional approach," Dr Bollard
said.
In the future we will hold some portion of our foreign reserves on an
unhedged basis - an "open FX" position. This means that part of the
foreign reserves portfolio will be funded in New Zealand dollars rather
than in foreign currencies."
Dr Bollard said that the main reason for this new approach to foreign
exchange (FX) management is to give the Bank a more effective means of
responding to crisis situations involving sharp falls in the NZ dollar.
"In crisis situations it is of paramount importance that the Bank
retains access to foreign currency reserves. With a portion of our
reserves no longer borrowed from abroad, but funded internally, we will
become less dependent on international capital markets in times of
crisis.
"Also, the use of unhedged reserves in this situation will be less
costly and give rise to less additional risk than would be the case
using hedged reserves. Unhedged foreign reserves provide a more
effective form of insurance against a currency crisis."
The Bank's guidelines for operating in the foreign exchange market have
also been modified. Overt intervention intended to affect the exchange
rate directly may still occur. In addition, the Bank will be able to
more gradually accumulate or reduce its foreign exchange position when
the exchange rate is at extreme levels and unjustified by medium-term
economic fundamentals.
Dr Bollard said that the Bank's more passive FX transactions will not
necessarily be expected to directly affect the exchange rate.
"However, such transactions will allow the Bank to give concrete signals
regarding the extent to which the exchange rate is seen as over- or
under-valued. That may indirectly affect the exchange rate by
discouraging speculators from pushing the currency to extreme levels."
Because the interest rates on the Bank's New Zealand dollar borrowings
are higher than on foreign currency borrowing, the annual cost of
holding foreign reserves is expected to increase somewhat with the
change in approach.
The increased open FX position on the Bank's balance sheet is also
expected to result in greater variability in the Bank's net income, as a
result of foreign exchange gains and losses. However, the Bank's foreign
exchange positions could be expected to be profitable on average over
the medium term.
The Bank has been using and will continue to use its FX market
operations to lift the level of its unhedged reserves towards a new
long-run average level. The Bank publishes its open foreign exchange
position monthly on its website, with a lag of one month.
Background documents on this new policy are available on the Reserve
Bank and New Zealand Treasury's websites.
Monday, June 11, 2007
I cannot say how much dread and foreboding this incites
For your information the Reserve Bank released this news release a short
time ago
News release
11 June 2007, 3.45pm
Reserve Bank confirms forex intervention
The Reserve Bank confirmed it has intervened today in the foreign
exchange market to sell New Zealand dollars.
Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard said: "As stated in our June
Monetary Policy Statement, we regard current levels of the exchange rate
as exceptional and unjustified in terms of the economic fundamentals.
"This action does not prejudge the future direction of monetary policy,
which as always will remain dependent on emerging economic trends.
"The action is consistent with clause 4(b) of the Policy Targets
Agreement, which requires monetary policy to avoid unnecessary
instability in the exchange rate."
For further information contact:
Mike Hannah
Head of Communications
Ph 04 4713671, 021 497418, mike.hannah@rbnz.govt.nz
time ago
News release
11 June 2007, 3.45pm
Reserve Bank confirms forex intervention
The Reserve Bank confirmed it has intervened today in the foreign
exchange market to sell New Zealand dollars.
Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard said: "As stated in our June
Monetary Policy Statement, we regard current levels of the exchange rate
as exceptional and unjustified in terms of the economic fundamentals.
"This action does not prejudge the future direction of monetary policy,
which as always will remain dependent on emerging economic trends.
"The action is consistent with clause 4(b) of the Policy Targets
Agreement, which requires monetary policy to avoid unnecessary
instability in the exchange rate."
For further information contact:
Mike Hannah
Head of Communications
Ph 04 4713671, 021 497418, mike.hannah@rbnz.govt.nz
Budget and Economy conference
Had a fascinating evening at the FINSIA Government Speaks event on Wednesday with Tony Alexander, Bill English and Phil Goff giving their views on the budget and economy; enlivened via the expert MC in Barry Soper.
Of course it probably would have been even better had Trevor Mallard turned up as scheduled rather than scarpering at the last moment to Valencia as he realised that otherwise he was going to miss his photo shoot opportunity with Team NZ winning.Typical of politicians in general, but the current administration in particular; sod any other commitments if there is a good looking photo on offer...
Bill English, despite looking like he'd just stepped off a flight back from Europe with too much 1st class alcohol, gave a pretty god account;but the real star speech of the night certainly went to Tony Alexander. With Billy Bowden (of old) exuberance he gave some interesting and challenging views on the economy, direction and views on what the Reserve Bank has and should be doing around inflation.It's just a shame that he needed to heavily contradict himself under questioning around the points of consumer import spending being a one off catchup under the high dollar (his view); as this significantly weakened his arguments that otherwise would have had a greater impact on my viewpoints.
Overall though a spectacular event; and looking forward to the next!
Of course it probably would have been even better had Trevor Mallard turned up as scheduled rather than scarpering at the last moment to Valencia as he realised that otherwise he was going to miss his photo shoot opportunity with Team NZ winning.Typical of politicians in general, but the current administration in particular; sod any other commitments if there is a good looking photo on offer...
Bill English, despite looking like he'd just stepped off a flight back from Europe with too much 1st class alcohol, gave a pretty god account;but the real star speech of the night certainly went to Tony Alexander. With Billy Bowden (of old) exuberance he gave some interesting and challenging views on the economy, direction and views on what the Reserve Bank has and should be doing around inflation.It's just a shame that he needed to heavily contradict himself under questioning around the points of consumer import spending being a one off catchup under the high dollar (his view); as this significantly weakened his arguments that otherwise would have had a greater impact on my viewpoints.
Overall though a spectacular event; and looking forward to the next!
Friday, June 01, 2007
KiwiBank - the real one
Hattip: Stuff
TSB Bank has yet again shown what an incredible waste of taxpayers money the white elephant of KiwiBank truely is.
It "has posted a $34.8 million after-tax profit for the year to March, 11.3 per cent ahead of last year and its 20th successive record profit."
While still retaining "the lowest two-year fixed interest rate on the market for the past seven months."
In terms of risk and return:
TSB's capital adequacy ratio of 16.08 per cent was the highest of any bank in the country and more than double the international standard of 8 per cent.
Return on average assets of 1.28 per cent compared with the benchmark of 1 per cent.
And that is right, while returning a return to the community - not continuing to bleed the poor NZ public for more and more capital injections. Go to Taranaki at some point and see the levels of public infrastructure funded by the TSB and you'll get the idea. The TSB does more for Taranaki than the local body council (although that's hardly surprising - they are too busy building themselves new offices and water features).
But of course without KiwiBank we wouldn't have a(nother) monument to the stupidity of Jim Anderton and the failure of left wing dogma.
TSB Bank has yet again shown what an incredible waste of taxpayers money the white elephant of KiwiBank truely is.
It "has posted a $34.8 million after-tax profit for the year to March, 11.3 per cent ahead of last year and its 20th successive record profit."
While still retaining "the lowest two-year fixed interest rate on the market for the past seven months."
In terms of risk and return:
TSB's capital adequacy ratio of 16.08 per cent was the highest of any bank in the country and more than double the international standard of 8 per cent.
Return on average assets of 1.28 per cent compared with the benchmark of 1 per cent.
And that is right, while returning a return to the community - not continuing to bleed the poor NZ public for more and more capital injections. Go to Taranaki at some point and see the levels of public infrastructure funded by the TSB and you'll get the idea. The TSB does more for Taranaki than the local body council (although that's hardly surprising - they are too busy building themselves new offices and water features).
But of course without KiwiBank we wouldn't have a(nother) monument to the stupidity of Jim Anderton and the failure of left wing dogma.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Regional Road Taxes
Hattip: NZ Herald
Oddly enough I'm actually not against the new regional road taxes -
they do introduce some oddities into the market equilibrium due to the arbitrary boundaries involved but overall they do help to move more towards a user pays environment.
Which is where my real objections lie - the remaining general fuel taxes. Because if each region actually was retaining the fuel tax paid within its boundaries Auckland would now be able to introduce a subsidy - not the 10c tax hike.
The inefficiency is shown through the need to place a regional fuel tax on the motorists of the region which already subside most of the reat of New Zealand.
Which is endemic to the issue of the Labour party and its governing style; the inefficiencies created through the income allocation and redistribution performed keep needing more and more to occur to iron out the imbalances created.
There is a shortfall in spending on Auckland roading infrastructure because the Labour party has decreed that there should be, not because the consumers in that area aren't already paying for it.
I think the regional tax is a great idea - but the existing slush fund of fuel taxes should be scrapped first...
Oddly enough I'm actually not against the new regional road taxes -
they do introduce some oddities into the market equilibrium due to the arbitrary boundaries involved but overall they do help to move more towards a user pays environment.
Which is where my real objections lie - the remaining general fuel taxes. Because if each region actually was retaining the fuel tax paid within its boundaries Auckland would now be able to introduce a subsidy - not the 10c tax hike.
The inefficiency is shown through the need to place a regional fuel tax on the motorists of the region which already subside most of the reat of New Zealand.
Which is endemic to the issue of the Labour party and its governing style; the inefficiencies created through the income allocation and redistribution performed keep needing more and more to occur to iron out the imbalances created.
There is a shortfall in spending on Auckland roading infrastructure because the Labour party has decreed that there should be, not because the consumers in that area aren't already paying for it.
I think the regional tax is a great idea - but the existing slush fund of fuel taxes should be scrapped first...
Monday, May 21, 2007
TaxBlog prediction was right - a Year in advance!
Thanks to taxblog post: http://www.taxblog.co.nz/?cat=23
That annoucement caused the Labour government some seriously negative press… And prompted calls to reduce the company tax rate to 30%. Interesting that Cullen is still thinking about such a move, at the expense of introducing a payroll tax.
So whatever happened to the payroll tax?
Probably someone in treasury is crunching the numbers working out the revenue implications of trading a 3% drop in corporate income tax for the introduction of a payroll tax
I'm almost worried to find out what he might predict for next years budget...
That annoucement caused the Labour government some seriously negative press… And prompted calls to reduce the company tax rate to 30%. Interesting that Cullen is still thinking about such a move, at the expense of introducing a payroll tax.
So whatever happened to the payroll tax?
Probably someone in treasury is crunching the numbers working out the revenue implications of trading a 3% drop in corporate income tax for the introduction of a payroll tax
I'm almost worried to find out what he might predict for next years budget...
Friday, May 18, 2007
KiwiBank Home Loan Sale
Anyone else fascinated by the KiwiBank home loan sale on at the moment?
In that the only bank currently discounting rates in the face of the rhetoric of the housing market causing inflation seems to be the Government owned bank?
So the questions would have to be -
Has KiwiBank been given the OK because the Government really does acknowledge that it is their spending that is inflationary, not just the housing market?
Is KiwiBank the only bank that can sustain these squeezed margins, because at it's heart the money returned to the Reserve Bank via the OCR still has the same shareholder...
Does KiwiBank know something about the future direction of NZ's monetary policy that the other banks don't?
In that the only bank currently discounting rates in the face of the rhetoric of the housing market causing inflation seems to be the Government owned bank?
So the questions would have to be -
Has KiwiBank been given the OK because the Government really does acknowledge that it is their spending that is inflationary, not just the housing market?
Is KiwiBank the only bank that can sustain these squeezed margins, because at it's heart the money returned to the Reserve Bank via the OCR still has the same shareholder...
Does KiwiBank know something about the future direction of NZ's monetary policy that the other banks don't?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Subway Storm
OK - there really is little point in arguing about this guys until the point around whether there was two or one cup of drink involved is settled.In one case we have clear intent, the other really is just bad judgement. In the former case, yes, the employer was justified - if somewhat harsh in their treatment of the employee;in the latter case the employee is probably justified in their PG.
But taking the hypothetical of the first case is the PG of the employee still justified - because this really is part of the issue with NZ Labour laws at the moment and why they remain a huge impediment to the growth of NZ companies.
To move to a different scenario (so that I actually know the true circumstances):
We had an (ex)collegue that was so disruptive they had managed to get 3 people to resign in a company of 20.However they were so litigous and CYA oriented that the process of letting them go was drawn out over 6 months.And to prove how unstable they were during the final meeting the employee ended up threatening one of my other colleagues with a stack of glass coasters,and (at least partially) due to the unsettling effects of being stood over by someone yelling at them with a potentially quite harmful object drawn back they stuffed up some of the finer procedural points of that meeting.So to cut what could (and will be if anyone wants more details) be a long story a bit shorter; this person ended up getting paid out around 2 months salary and given a positive reference to their next employer (victim) because their "rights" had been infringed.Never even mind the rights of their collegues to a functional workplace. Because while people bang on about workers rights and rights of criminals etc they often seem to forget that there may be other people having their rights trodden on in the process...
Go Warriors!
Or at least give us something other than that abysmal performance on Saturday!At least the judiciary agreed with us (the crowd) at the appaling standard of the reffing:to only have 2 of the 5 Warriors put on report actually charged shows what the standard of the original decisions were...
Although to be fair it really didn't have that much effect on a team that was determined to lose.
More interesting though is whether the Warriors are truely a side with a culture that corrupts its players?I notice with interest that Tony Martin this week had a "discount" on his charge due to it being his first in 7 years - Wade McKinnon similarly suddenly cops a grade 3 contrary conduct charge last week after 7 years free of charge - while Steven Price also in his first year copped his first judiciary charges of his (not insubstantial) career.So one really has to question the causality in this relationship - does the Warriors outfit really make players more likely to offend; or more likely to get charged?
Although to be fair it really didn't have that much effect on a team that was determined to lose.
More interesting though is whether the Warriors are truely a side with a culture that corrupts its players?I notice with interest that Tony Martin this week had a "discount" on his charge due to it being his first in 7 years - Wade McKinnon similarly suddenly cops a grade 3 contrary conduct charge last week after 7 years free of charge - while Steven Price also in his first year copped his first judiciary charges of his (not insubstantial) career.So one really has to question the causality in this relationship - does the Warriors outfit really make players more likely to offend; or more likely to get charged?
Friday, March 02, 2007
Housing Affordability
Thanks to the NZ Herald I discover today that Parliament's commerce select committee has decided to hold an inquiry into housing affordability.
Now of course I hope that something good and practical actually comes out of this; like the removal of special treatment for the family home, recognition that the high interest policy leads to higher - not lower - housing costs especially for those in low income brackets etc. But somehow I doubt it.
And more importantly I doubt they will have the wherewithal to try and tackle the main issue with housing prices - people buying things they can't afford. Lets face it the main factor driving up the housing prices in New Zealand today is stupidity. And the complete lack of any willingness to compromise.
We conntinue to read about the lack of affordable housing in Auckland - which is just complete and utter tripe. It is still completely possible to buy a 3 bedroom house for $278,000 in Auckland within walking distance of the largest mall in NZ, the train station, 2 main bus trunk routes, on 700 square meters of land. Or at least I can guarantee that as of last September anyway...
What is the real issue; oh it's not in Remuera et al. And so it's outside where people are willing to look. And so the 'desirable' suburbs are so overpriced as to push the median house price to over $450,000. Note the difference?
Oh of course school zoning doesn't help this - but that really is the exact same issue, as both DPF and Cactus Kate have so eloquently blogged on before; it is the lack of willingness to actually look at both what you can afford - and more importantly what you actually need.
Do beneficiaries need to live in $1.5 million dollar houses in Orakei - by definition proximity to the city to reduce commute times isn't exactly a priority...
Monday, January 29, 2007
Caring and Charity - Socialist Style
First apologies for the recent stasis of my blog :-{
Changing jobs, renovations and increasing despair at the state of New Zealand and it's politics created a mix of apathy and timelessness that has conspired against contributing back to the community. I've still been active listening to the voices though.
As such as I was referred to this from dpf I couldn't help but shake myself out of my reverie at least briefly - mostly because it reinforces what Cactus Kate blogged about recently and the socialist left supporters still couldn't understand - that the Socialist parties are not charitable and do not understand the concept.
John Key's offer was charitable - he offered something of his to Made from New Zealand.
In typical fashion, Mallards response is not charity - he offered something of mine to Made from New Zealand (alright - not just mine - something from everyone but him!)
Do you start to get it now? The right / libertarian wings tend to understand and grasp the concept of charity. They like having the money they earn so they can do charitable things with it.
The left do not understand and like to have everyone else's money so they can spend on what they want - preferably so they can take more of what is someone else's. And pretend to hold the moral high ground while doing so.
Changing jobs, renovations and increasing despair at the state of New Zealand and it's politics created a mix of apathy and timelessness that has conspired against contributing back to the community. I've still been active listening to the voices though.
As such as I was referred to this from dpf I couldn't help but shake myself out of my reverie at least briefly - mostly because it reinforces what Cactus Kate blogged about recently and the socialist left supporters still couldn't understand - that the Socialist parties are not charitable and do not understand the concept.
John Key's offer was charitable - he offered something of his to Made from New Zealand.
In typical fashion, Mallards response is not charity - he offered something of mine to Made from New Zealand (alright - not just mine - something from everyone but him!)
Do you start to get it now? The right / libertarian wings tend to understand and grasp the concept of charity. They like having the money they earn so they can do charitable things with it.
The left do not understand and like to have everyone else's money so they can spend on what they want - preferably so they can take more of what is someone else's. And pretend to hold the moral high ground while doing so.
Friday, November 24, 2006
The Real Stadium Decision
It is easy to see that the proponents of the Waterfront stadium live in a sadly deluded world - just by looking at the comments of the main support base.
The most common reason you see given for supporting the Waterfront stadium is that: "the 1 billion is going to be spent anyway; so why not on this? / something we want?". Which of course is the saddest possible reason to invest in a project; it's not good enough to actually do - but hey we've got the money so lets spend it!
It also makes an ironic mockery of Cullen et al. claims that there is insufficient money for a tax cut - in fact this type of project is the precise definition within corporate theory showing where dividends lead to far better outcomes due to the removal of agency issues.
Lets face it - the real decision here is actually between the Waterfront stadium or Jade, but Jade with a $300 dividend (fully imputated) distributed back. And that is the connection and thinking that this Socialist driven Government has managed to supress. It has managed to pervert and subjugate the thinking of the country to such a degree that we cannot seem to actually make a real comparison anymore. No one I have spoken to refutes that the latter is a far better idea than the waterfront stadium; and yet surely this is the real underlying decision that is being made?
The most common reason you see given for supporting the Waterfront stadium is that: "the 1 billion is going to be spent anyway; so why not on this? / something we want?". Which of course is the saddest possible reason to invest in a project; it's not good enough to actually do - but hey we've got the money so lets spend it!
It also makes an ironic mockery of Cullen et al. claims that there is insufficient money for a tax cut - in fact this type of project is the precise definition within corporate theory showing where dividends lead to far better outcomes due to the removal of agency issues.
Lets face it - the real decision here is actually between the Waterfront stadium or Jade, but Jade with a $300 dividend (fully imputated) distributed back. And that is the connection and thinking that this Socialist driven Government has managed to supress. It has managed to pervert and subjugate the thinking of the country to such a degree that we cannot seem to actually make a real comparison anymore. No one I have spoken to refutes that the latter is a far better idea than the waterfront stadium; and yet surely this is the real underlying decision that is being made?
Friday, November 17, 2006
How is this not news? (NZ national saving falls to $575 per capita)
Hattip: Stuff
I actually first spotted this as a small side bar in the printed NZ Herald today - but then apparently it isn't even newsworthy enough to post on their website. Fortunately Stuff have deigned to post it - although only as their 21st story within the business section.
Due to how important I feel this really is I have included the whole article at the end of this post. Although given it's not that long that really isn't much of an imposition.
How as a nation we can continue to complain about levels of foreign ownership and poverty while returning appalling statistics like this is beyond me; despite our disposable incomes rising 3.9% our national savings have plummeted to $2.3 billion - or $575 per person. This is reinforcing the
statistic I was initially planning to highlight which is that the median level of share ownership in this country at the moment is only $6000.
Of course most of our companies are owned offshore and return their profits there. As a nation we are too stupid and apathetic to do anything about it. Buying shares just isn't that hard people - and until you do you are abdicating any right to whinge about offshore profits, and morals of offshore conglomerates. There are two main ways that people should be affecting the behaviors of companies; the first to exercise your powers of choice as a consumer - if you don't like the practices involved in providing a product do not buy it and notify the producer why you're not buying their product. Secondly, become a shareholder - when two of the three main stakeholder groups for a company are intrinsically aligned it becomes really easy to mold behavior...
And actually having some real, country generating wealth means we can start to improve the standards of living for the people living here - rather than mortgaging ourselves to selling our land as the only asset we own. It is not real wealth you are sitting on there people, but fools gold maybe.
NZ national saving falls to six-year low
16 November 2006
New Zealand's saving fell in the year to March to the lowest level in six years, Statistics New Zealand said today.
National saving fell to $2.3 billion, from $5.5 billion in 2005, and $7.3 billion in 2004, according to the consolidated accounts.
At the same time, national disposable income for consumption or saving rose 3.9 per cent, following a 5.3 per cent rise in the March 2005 year, the government agency said.
Increased final consumption by households and government – up 6.9 per cent – eroded national saving, on the back of falling agricultural profits and lower export growth.
I actually first spotted this as a small side bar in the printed NZ Herald today - but then apparently it isn't even newsworthy enough to post on their website. Fortunately Stuff have deigned to post it - although only as their 21st story within the business section.
Due to how important I feel this really is I have included the whole article at the end of this post. Although given it's not that long that really isn't much of an imposition.
How as a nation we can continue to complain about levels of foreign ownership and poverty while returning appalling statistics like this is beyond me; despite our disposable incomes rising 3.9% our national savings have plummeted to $2.3 billion - or $575 per person. This is reinforcing the
statistic I was initially planning to highlight which is that the median level of share ownership in this country at the moment is only $6000.
Of course most of our companies are owned offshore and return their profits there. As a nation we are too stupid and apathetic to do anything about it. Buying shares just isn't that hard people - and until you do you are abdicating any right to whinge about offshore profits, and morals of offshore conglomerates. There are two main ways that people should be affecting the behaviors of companies; the first to exercise your powers of choice as a consumer - if you don't like the practices involved in providing a product do not buy it and notify the producer why you're not buying their product. Secondly, become a shareholder - when two of the three main stakeholder groups for a company are intrinsically aligned it becomes really easy to mold behavior...
And actually having some real, country generating wealth means we can start to improve the standards of living for the people living here - rather than mortgaging ourselves to selling our land as the only asset we own. It is not real wealth you are sitting on there people, but fools gold maybe.
NZ national saving falls to six-year low
16 November 2006
New Zealand's saving fell in the year to March to the lowest level in six years, Statistics New Zealand said today.
National saving fell to $2.3 billion, from $5.5 billion in 2005, and $7.3 billion in 2004, according to the consolidated accounts.
At the same time, national disposable income for consumption or saving rose 3.9 per cent, following a 5.3 per cent rise in the March 2005 year, the government agency said.
Increased final consumption by households and government – up 6.9 per cent – eroded national saving, on the back of falling agricultural profits and lower export growth.
Time will tell
Hattip: Stuff
I hope Mallard is still willing to stand by his claims when the stadium does end up costing that much. In fact one would think this would be a good time to introduce the practice of personal guarantees into politics.
It is a fairly common practice in business where the owner has to place their assets and asses on the line as a guarantee for their culpability - one would think that the governors of our country would be far more truthful and prudent if they were held to the same standards of accountability...
At the same time it said its surveyors had costed the waterfront stadium at $902m.
Mr Mallard said Eden Park's latest figures for how much they think the waterfront would cost were "absolutely outrageous" and incorrect.
I hope Mallard is still willing to stand by his claims when the stadium does end up costing that much. In fact one would think this would be a good time to introduce the practice of personal guarantees into politics.
It is a fairly common practice in business where the owner has to place their assets and asses on the line as a guarantee for their culpability - one would think that the governors of our country would be far more truthful and prudent if they were held to the same standards of accountability...
Monday, November 13, 2006
Good on ya boys!!
Spectacular work by the Kiwi's to thump Great Britain in the league on Saturday!
Although I have to admit that there were actually a few worrying signs despite the 34-4 scoreline;
Great Britain's ability to compromise our line with line breaks almost perpetually through the game,
A number of our tries were just luck (OK - I know Stacey is a fantastic kicker, but if 'that' kick hadn't taken the crossbar it was about to be a 20m restart because it was well covered behind the line)
Great Britain was only that far behind because the blew a couple of chances (although personally I think the try being disallowed was the correct decision)
Given the possession and territory stats - surely we should have got more points!
Simpkins showed a worrying decision around Keith Senior and Steve Matai. While I agree with the final decision to send them both for 10 minutes (this option really should get used more) he intimated that originally he was only going to send Matai. When you compare the conduct of the two players; throwing the ball at Danny McGuire, or storming in from 3 people away to throw a punch - I know which one I would be sending first. Whereas apparently Senior only got sent because of his conduct while being called up for the chat...
And for one final complaint about the officiating:
You have got to get consistent - get the ruck area cleared, draw a line and then stick to it. This crap of throwing out random penalties for holding down in the ruck for what are clearly not the worst offences just confuses and frustrates the players and fans.
Similarly there is a reason the lines are drawn at 10m intervals refs - Simpkins was all over the place on Saturday and I have to commend both sides for not giving away a plethora of offside penalties as a result. But it has got to be unsettling for your defensive line when you don't know from tackle to tackle how far you are going to have to recede.
Although I have to admit that there were actually a few worrying signs despite the 34-4 scoreline;
Great Britain's ability to compromise our line with line breaks almost perpetually through the game,
A number of our tries were just luck (OK - I know Stacey is a fantastic kicker, but if 'that' kick hadn't taken the crossbar it was about to be a 20m restart because it was well covered behind the line)
Great Britain was only that far behind because the blew a couple of chances (although personally I think the try being disallowed was the correct decision)
Given the possession and territory stats - surely we should have got more points!
Simpkins showed a worrying decision around Keith Senior and Steve Matai. While I agree with the final decision to send them both for 10 minutes (this option really should get used more) he intimated that originally he was only going to send Matai. When you compare the conduct of the two players; throwing the ball at Danny McGuire, or storming in from 3 people away to throw a punch - I know which one I would be sending first. Whereas apparently Senior only got sent because of his conduct while being called up for the chat...
And for one final complaint about the officiating:
You have got to get consistent - get the ruck area cleared, draw a line and then stick to it. This crap of throwing out random penalties for holding down in the ruck for what are clearly not the worst offences just confuses and frustrates the players and fans.
Similarly there is a reason the lines are drawn at 10m intervals refs - Simpkins was all over the place on Saturday and I have to commend both sides for not giving away a plethora of offside penalties as a result. But it has got to be unsettling for your defensive line when you don't know from tackle to tackle how far you are going to have to recede.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Political Compass Meme
Economic Left/Right: 3.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.08
hattip: www.politicalcompass.org
Helps to serve as a disclaimer for your posts :D - interesting that it does actually place me about where I would expect myself to be. From reading the posts around the blogosphere it sounds like it is relatively accurate...
So where do your persuasions lie?
Incentivising sub-optimal behaviour
The interesting thing in watching the latest round of commerce commission inquiries into Credit Cards and interchange payments is that the issues highly parallel many policy initiatives that Labour has been implementing these terms.
The primary issue with Credit Card interchange fees and the reason they stay high is because there is a behavioural driver towards using the most inefficient method of payment.
To explain (very briefly) - when you pay via Credit Card the charge for using the card (the net revenue) goes to the bank that has issued you with the card. IE you have an ASB Credit Card, when you pay with it ASB Bank makes money, and the bank that the merchant you are buying from actually loses money. When you pay via EFTPOS however it is the opposite way around - you pay with your ASB Bank EFTPOS card the ASB Bank loses a transaction fee to the merchant banking operation. In both cases the transaction switch (ETSL or EFTPOS NZ) takes a cut, but this can be seen as net zero across a comparison of transaction type.
So the issuing bank has a direct incentive to have you pay via the Credit Card, and not your EFTPOS card; which is why you get reward points on your Visa purchases, and pay transaction fees on your ETFPOS purchases. This is despite there being less parties involved in the EFTPOS transaction (no VISA / Mastercard to take their cut), and the overall system actually being cheaper and more efficient.
So as a consumer presented with the skewed information that we have at our fingertips it seems that we are better off paying via our Credit Card; and as an individual we are. However systemically this leads to higher prices, and in net terms we actually end up losing out as the amount we are paying for the goods includes a higher and higher percentage of averaged transaction cost rather than actual good / service provision.
Now apply this to the policy initiatives that Labour has used, particularly in the recent term:
WFF incentivises the premature forming of a family unit, particularly where an individuals wages / salaries are expected to rise over the medium term.
Stepped income tax brackets increases the incentive to use and retain lawyers / accountants increasing transaction costs rather than actual good / service provision.
Tax free student loans encourage borrowers to borrow as much capital as possible, and take the longest possible time to pay back - on the first major debt commitment they are ever likely to have.
Capital Gains initiatives encourage the diversification of a persons portfolio to be reduced, tending towards a maximum diversification across Australasia.
There are many more examples that they have given recently - take the time to think critically about the effects of your Governments policies - both in terms of what behaviour that encourages in terms of being beneficial to the individual, and whether the net effect is just an increase in fiscal drag on the economy.
The primary issue with Credit Card interchange fees and the reason they stay high is because there is a behavioural driver towards using the most inefficient method of payment.
To explain (very briefly) - when you pay via Credit Card the charge for using the card (the net revenue) goes to the bank that has issued you with the card. IE you have an ASB Credit Card, when you pay with it ASB Bank makes money, and the bank that the merchant you are buying from actually loses money. When you pay via EFTPOS however it is the opposite way around - you pay with your ASB Bank EFTPOS card the ASB Bank loses a transaction fee to the merchant banking operation. In both cases the transaction switch (ETSL or EFTPOS NZ) takes a cut, but this can be seen as net zero across a comparison of transaction type.
So the issuing bank has a direct incentive to have you pay via the Credit Card, and not your EFTPOS card; which is why you get reward points on your Visa purchases, and pay transaction fees on your ETFPOS purchases. This is despite there being less parties involved in the EFTPOS transaction (no VISA / Mastercard to take their cut), and the overall system actually being cheaper and more efficient.
So as a consumer presented with the skewed information that we have at our fingertips it seems that we are better off paying via our Credit Card; and as an individual we are. However systemically this leads to higher prices, and in net terms we actually end up losing out as the amount we are paying for the goods includes a higher and higher percentage of averaged transaction cost rather than actual good / service provision.
Now apply this to the policy initiatives that Labour has used, particularly in the recent term:
WFF incentivises the premature forming of a family unit, particularly where an individuals wages / salaries are expected to rise over the medium term.
Stepped income tax brackets increases the incentive to use and retain lawyers / accountants increasing transaction costs rather than actual good / service provision.
Tax free student loans encourage borrowers to borrow as much capital as possible, and take the longest possible time to pay back - on the first major debt commitment they are ever likely to have.
Capital Gains initiatives encourage the diversification of a persons portfolio to be reduced, tending towards a maximum diversification across Australasia.
There are many more examples that they have given recently - take the time to think critically about the effects of your Governments policies - both in terms of what behaviour that encourages in terms of being beneficial to the individual, and whether the net effect is just an increase in fiscal drag on the economy.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Been out of touch
Just to make you jealous (our room with a view) - finally made it down to Queenstown for a week away (so no posting last week) - and it was more than enjoyable to cut oneself off from the world over that time.
So now this week will be a case of slowly emerging from the hermitage once again ;-)
And yes - we did the bungy; Nevis = 143m = 8.5 second freefall
Auckland, great city, great future, great big bill...
I'm presuming everyone in Auckland just received the latest Auckland City Annual Report Summary via their local pamphlet deliverer?
If not then you would have missed the delightful performance of our elected officials, who despite gaining $44 million more in revenue than forcast managed to outdo themselves by increasing expenditure by $209 million more than forcast to still reach a deficit situation.
To be fair they explain that much of this is due to one-off non-budgeted expenditure - but then again missing one-off expenditures from the budget that make up 37% of the original budget size would get most of us fired.
Meanwhile I'm sure everyone will be delighted to congratulate the 48 winners of $296,000 each in public works grants. I can partially understand the council wanting to get involved in flood risk reduction - but the question has to be asked at what point it would be more economical to buy the land as wetland reserve? Especially as the delapidated number of Kahikitea wetlands is recognised as being core to the plumitting native bird numbers. And that is before pointing out as a good Libertarian; why are the general Auckland pubilc being called on to increase the value of others property who specifically got their land for the price they did due to location and geological features that lead to the aforementioned flood risk.
You may find it harder to argue against me in favour of the council spending than you might think - my house happens to be on the edge of a 100 year flood plain. You may be willing to pay me to make that a 500 year flood plain, but personally I know that we got our land for the price we did because of it.
If not then you would have missed the delightful performance of our elected officials, who despite gaining $44 million more in revenue than forcast managed to outdo themselves by increasing expenditure by $209 million more than forcast to still reach a deficit situation.
To be fair they explain that much of this is due to one-off non-budgeted expenditure - but then again missing one-off expenditures from the budget that make up 37% of the original budget size would get most of us fired.
Meanwhile I'm sure everyone will be delighted to congratulate the 48 winners of $296,000 each in public works grants. I can partially understand the council wanting to get involved in flood risk reduction - but the question has to be asked at what point it would be more economical to buy the land as wetland reserve? Especially as the delapidated number of Kahikitea wetlands is recognised as being core to the plumitting native bird numbers. And that is before pointing out as a good Libertarian; why are the general Auckland pubilc being called on to increase the value of others property who specifically got their land for the price they did due to location and geological features that lead to the aforementioned flood risk.
You may find it harder to argue against me in favour of the council spending than you might think - my house happens to be on the edge of a 100 year flood plain. You may be willing to pay me to make that a 500 year flood plain, but personally I know that we got our land for the price we did because of it.
Friday, October 20, 2006
You have to love Labour press releases
Hattip: Scoop
“Politics is a public business and it requires transparency. National is opposed to that because they want to repeat their 2005 rorts next time, which is why they are hostile to every initiative to ensure our political system is open to all, transparent, and clean,” Pete Hodgson said.
What can you say? That Delusions of Honesty quote comes to mind as the only cogent answer.
“Politics is a public business and it requires transparency. National is opposed to that because they want to repeat their 2005 rorts next time, which is why they are hostile to every initiative to ensure our political system is open to all, transparent, and clean,” Pete Hodgson said.
What can you say? That Delusions of Honesty quote comes to mind as the only cogent answer.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Tax cut affordability
This snippet from the CIS report "Why tax cuts are good for growth"
is too important to leave "isolated" on Kiwiblog
One could lower the corporate, top and middle rates to 30% and the lower-middle rate to 18% for just $3.15 billion per annum
This one statement helps to reveal the Left wing rhetoric for what it is; inflamatory and empty.
Their defensive cries of tax cuts requiring service cuts are just not true; even Michael Cullen has admitted to there being "only" $3 billion (of the $11 billion surplus) that could be attributed to tax cuts. And this $11 billion surplus is after his ferriting away $19 billion in "unallocated" spending.
And it further debunks that tax cuts are for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Show me a middle class household that wouldn't greatly benefit by a 14% reduction in their taxation rate.
is too important to leave "isolated" on Kiwiblog
One could lower the corporate, top and middle rates to 30% and the lower-middle rate to 18% for just $3.15 billion per annum
This one statement helps to reveal the Left wing rhetoric for what it is; inflamatory and empty.
Their defensive cries of tax cuts requiring service cuts are just not true; even Michael Cullen has admitted to there being "only" $3 billion (of the $11 billion surplus) that could be attributed to tax cuts. And this $11 billion surplus is after his ferriting away $19 billion in "unallocated" spending.
And it further debunks that tax cuts are for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Show me a middle class household that wouldn't greatly benefit by a 14% reduction in their taxation rate.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Sign petition now!
At PetitionOnline
Why? (Hattip: KiwiBlog)
Helen Clark has explicitly voted to kill off a lawsuit in which she is the prime defendant.
[edit] Yay - well, at least just watched the petition crack 10,000 votes so at least that is a start; but I can't see it meaning anything at all without a whole lot more. Get the word out there people, and to your less politically and information technology astute peers as well!
[edit] And it appears to have managed to generate enough publicity that even some of the MSM are picking up on it:
Petition calls for legislation to be blocked
To: His Excellency, Anand Satyanand, Governor General of New Zealand
Why? (Hattip: KiwiBlog)
Amendments which they defeated include:
Clause 6A(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the High Court proceedings of Darnton v Clark dated 29 June 2006 (Civ No. 2006-485-1398) in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the expenditure on the “pledge card” and related brochures by the Labour Parliamentary Party is a breach of the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Bill of Rights 1688.
This means Labour have explictly voted to kill off a lawsuit against themselvesHelen Clark has explicitly voted to kill off a lawsuit in which she is the prime defendant.
[edit] Yay - well, at least just watched the petition crack 10,000 votes so at least that is a start; but I can't see it meaning anything at all without a whole lot more. Get the word out there people, and to your less politically and information technology astute peers as well!
[edit] And it appears to have managed to generate enough publicity that even some of the MSM are picking up on it:
Petition calls for legislation to be blocked
Animal activists, defend the pie!
OK - I know I'm about 2 weeks behind the story on this, but needed to vent a little on it as it's still floating around. (Hattip: Stuff, Stuff)
Proposed changes to the rules on what can go into meat pies means that snouts, tongues and lung material may be on the way out.
The question I have to ask is why - who really cares? Is it not actually a good thing that all those parts of a beast that you would not normally purchase nor eat have actually found a way to be made appetizing and be used? Surely this should be something that people are behind - as long as these parts of the animal are rendered in such a way as to be unrecognisable, I really don't care whether they are in there - and if that is what tastes good in my pie then I'm happy that I'm not wasting a perfectly good steak in there which would have cost a further animal its life.
While in Europe I had a number of meals from animal parts that I would not normally touch; pig trotters, pig head, horse, etc. And each time my only question before trying these things was to make sure that they were not going to come out in a recognisable fashion (IE the trotters had been deboned, the head comes out as just meat, didn't actually worry about the horse...) - and they were spectacular. As most people who can bring themselves to eat well cooked offal will tell you - it really does tend to be the most flavoursome parts of the animal; it just isn't easy to eat them when you know what they are.
Step in that wonderful encasement of pastry and sauce and those less adventurous can still join in the culinary journey. Until they can only contain "flesh".
Proposed changes to the rules on what can go into meat pies means that snouts, tongues and lung material may be on the way out.
The question I have to ask is why - who really cares? Is it not actually a good thing that all those parts of a beast that you would not normally purchase nor eat have actually found a way to be made appetizing and be used? Surely this should be something that people are behind - as long as these parts of the animal are rendered in such a way as to be unrecognisable, I really don't care whether they are in there - and if that is what tastes good in my pie then I'm happy that I'm not wasting a perfectly good steak in there which would have cost a further animal its life.
While in Europe I had a number of meals from animal parts that I would not normally touch; pig trotters, pig head, horse, etc. And each time my only question before trying these things was to make sure that they were not going to come out in a recognisable fashion (IE the trotters had been deboned, the head comes out as just meat, didn't actually worry about the horse...) - and they were spectacular. As most people who can bring themselves to eat well cooked offal will tell you - it really does tend to be the most flavoursome parts of the animal; it just isn't easy to eat them when you know what they are.
Step in that wonderful encasement of pastry and sauce and those less adventurous can still join in the culinary journey. Until they can only contain "flesh".
Monday, October 16, 2006
James makes some sense
After getting over my surprise about that I had to point it out; (Hattip: Urbancast)
Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.
Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices - not that which is brought on oneself through theft and arrogance.
Otherwise, reconsider that donation to cover Labour's misspend, donate here instead - and then tell the PM about it.
Help to make a difference to poverty from lack of free trade and choices - not that which is brought on oneself through theft and arrogance.
A bit too precious about culture
A pity I missed watching the painful experience of our getting thumped by the Aussie League team on Saturday, as mentioned before we cannot justify the expense of Sky.
However one incident, that of Willie Mason slagging off our team during the Haka, has highlighted one important aspect of Maori culture with its latter coverage - that in general we are far too precious about it.
Face it guys - what is the Haka at the start of the game, what is its cultural meaning? It is a challenge from one warrior tribe to another - so what is more appropriate than the other side giving you their cultural challenge in reply? In fact you are probably lucky the Aussies didn't take the chance to give their real cultural reply to black men inhabiting ground they want - raising a musket and firing.
The Aussies just managed to outwit you again, as you predictably rose to take the bait and lose the composure that we desperately need to take them down a notch. Want to know the best way to respond next time? Get a grip and and win the game that you are there to play.
However one incident, that of Willie Mason slagging off our team during the Haka, has highlighted one important aspect of Maori culture with its latter coverage - that in general we are far too precious about it.
Face it guys - what is the Haka at the start of the game, what is its cultural meaning? It is a challenge from one warrior tribe to another - so what is more appropriate than the other side giving you their cultural challenge in reply? In fact you are probably lucky the Aussies didn't take the chance to give their real cultural reply to black men inhabiting ground they want - raising a musket and firing.
The Aussies just managed to outwit you again, as you predictably rose to take the bait and lose the composure that we desperately need to take them down a notch. Want to know the best way to respond next time? Get a grip and and win the game that you are there to play.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thanks to LLU
Congratulations on the increased competition brought about by LLU, now Whangarei residents are to get 10Mbit/s symmetrical service from $20/month. (Hattip: ComputerWorld)
Of course this breakthrough is actually nothing to do with LLU - how does LLU have anything to do with the provision of a new Wireless ISP? And that is the point.
LLU was not only a confiscation of private property rights, but it was an entirely unnecessary one. Telecom's main competitor, Vodafone, doesn't even have a fixed line business. So yeah - unbundling the copper loop is really necessary for competition.
There is already fiber based competition in those areas that actually warrant competition, even the likes of developments in Manakau are being trialled with fiber to the home deployments. Why is it that it is up to Telecom to perform all this infrastructure? Because the other Telco's can see that they can just sit back and be able to wait and use it - they have seen that there actually isn't the amount of price gouging going on that is claimed, and they might as well let someone else take the capital risk of investment when they will be able to use it just as if they had made the investment.
And then if Telecom makes the wrong call in the eyes of history, then the "new" players will blow them out of the water by investing in alternative routes.
Like Wi-Max.
Of course this breakthrough is actually nothing to do with LLU - how does LLU have anything to do with the provision of a new Wireless ISP? And that is the point.
LLU was not only a confiscation of private property rights, but it was an entirely unnecessary one. Telecom's main competitor, Vodafone, doesn't even have a fixed line business. So yeah - unbundling the copper loop is really necessary for competition.
There is already fiber based competition in those areas that actually warrant competition, even the likes of developments in Manakau are being trialled with fiber to the home deployments. Why is it that it is up to Telecom to perform all this infrastructure? Because the other Telco's can see that they can just sit back and be able to wait and use it - they have seen that there actually isn't the amount of price gouging going on that is claimed, and they might as well let someone else take the capital risk of investment when they will be able to use it just as if they had made the investment.
And then if Telecom makes the wrong call in the eyes of history, then the "new" players will blow them out of the water by investing in alternative routes.
Like Wi-Max.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Progressive Ideology
From the NZ Herald: (As spotted on Kiwiblog)
As much as I dislike the actual policies of Jim Anderton - this just helps to reinforce my belief that he is one of the only remaining parliamentarians who actually stands by his principles.
Good on you Jim - now all that remains is for you to pull support from any party who is too corrupt or stupid to follow the same guidelines you did...
The only party that did not spend election money illegally, the Progressives, says it was not hard to keep within the rules during the last campaign. And when it was unsure, it asked the office of the Auditor-General himself, Kevin Brady. Former list MP Matt Robson, who could perhaps still be in Parliament if the Progressives had dipped into leader Jim Anderton's parliamentary budget, said "there was no ambiguity"
As much as I dislike the actual policies of Jim Anderton - this just helps to reinforce my belief that he is one of the only remaining parliamentarians who actually stands by his principles.
Good on you Jim - now all that remains is for you to pull support from any party who is too corrupt or stupid to follow the same guidelines you did...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
A Fairy Tale for Our Times
Because this was way too good to leave buried as a comment on kiwiblog!
Copyright: Kiwi_Donkey
“Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Who’s the most popular of them all?”
“’Tis you, O Queen, wise and fair
Your judgement puts you in the clear
The people love you just and true
They do not turn to anyone new.”
The Queen received her due with grace
While peace and beauty showed on her face
Until a grunt disturbed her royal self
And she turned to see her finance Elf
“My Toiler! Banisher of all my cares
What news have you for my sweet ears?”
“None good, your Majesty,” replied the Elf
“The cupboard’s bare and so is the shelf
I’ve robbed Peter to pay Paul
Put the middle class in Thrall
Let taxes rise, put on new charges
Gathered windfalls, cut at margins
The roads are old, crime is rising
People are sick and business crying.”
“But what has happened to the cash we raised?”
Cried the Queen. If that is gone I’d be amazed.”
“Some went to the old woman who lives in a shoe,
And more to pay those telling her what to do
Some I kept to help the future old
Locked in my treasury is that last bit of gold
But most we spent as you told us to
A fritter here, a brainstorm there, and soon it’s through.”
“WHAT!” cried the mighty Queen with rage
“I must have gifts for the public mind
Handouts and favourites at every stage
Are necessary to keep them blind!”
At this the mirror stirred to life
“O Queen, the situation has changed
Your hope for love is hitting strife
From the woods, a new man arisen
Is treating your programmes with derision
Your reign so popular, wise and fair
Is now being seen as just hot air
Around him gather both good and mean
To take the throne from the spendthrift Queen.”
“How dare they challenge me, I am Snow White!
And to prove it I’ll smite with all my might.
Send for my dwarfs! Abandon the law!
If we can’t win fairly, we’ll have a war.”
So in came Smarmy, Angry, Sleepy,
Prissy, Dancer and Little Creepy
And last of all that mighty twit
Now known to all as the hypocrite
“Advance!” cried the Queen in a harsh tone.
“Find that man who claims the throne
Hack him down ‘till you reach bone
Do not rest until he doth moan
‘enough’ and retires from the fray
So that unfettered we may have our way.”
At the end of the day the dwarfs returned
Beaten, battered, broken and burned
Angry would no longer talk
At the thought of strife did Sleepy balk
Dancer still muttered, “he lied”, “he lied”
While Smarmy had just ducked and dived
Prissy was found behind the throne
His only weapon a wounded tone.
The hypocrite had fought with gusto
Fuelled by an antipasto,
Scampi and wine, consumed legato
But while his blows intended pain
They missed the target and hit John McCain.
And as for little creepy, that nosy squirt
None could tell whose side was worst hurt.
“Oh, no,” said the Queen to her finance Elf
“If you want something done, do it yourself”
And so she mounted her white charger
Rode to battle with great ardour
Galloping into filth and muck
Keeping going due to luck
Wielding claims both real and fake
And looking back not at her wake
Where sewers flowed and nightmares gathered
And with shapeless heaving the evil blathered.
Perhaps she will strike down her man?
But however much she strives and conquers,
If she thinks the mirror approves, she’s bonkers.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Don's sentiments worth repeating verbatim
Hattip: Stuff
Dr Brash said he was not denying many people identified strongly with their Maori ancestry, but it was wrong to argue the Government had failed its Treaty obligation if Maori were over-represented in negative social statistics.
"If Maori New Zealanders die more frequently from lung cancer than non-Maori do, for example, it is almost certainly because Maori New Zealanders choose to smoke more heavily than other New Zealanders do," he said.
"Similarly if there are relatively few Maori at the Auckland Law School - and that despite preferential arrangements for Maori - that is not a failing of the Government, but a result of decisions made by individual Maori.
"Nobody would suggest that because there are relatively few European New Zealanders in the All Blacks, there has been a breach of the Treaty."
On what basis do you dispute this? The only way I see is by avoiding the issue (again) and claiming that it is not the way the Treaty works. Maybe - but that is a diversionary tactic to the point. Give the responsibility to the decision maker - and maybe the decision will be different.
"But everybodies doing it"
Hattip: Stuff
As a further refutation to Labour's cries of dismay over the Auditor General's pending report into the Parliamentary services funding misspending - it is interesting to look at the ruling against Westpac - and more interestingly the comments made by the Commerce Commision regarding their prosecution:
Ignorance of the law is not a defence
Lack of clarity in the law is not a defence
Past occurances of the same offence is not a defence against gettting charged this time
But I'm only one of many, is definately not a defence.
Given that everybody else has to play by these principles - the politicians had better start too.
Maybe it is time for more names like Lafayette and Robspierre to be entered into history.
As a further refutation to Labour's cries of dismay over the Auditor General's pending report into the Parliamentary services funding misspending - it is interesting to look at the ruling against Westpac - and more interestingly the comments made by the Commerce Commision regarding their prosecution:
Commerce Commission General Manager Geoff Thorn said some people had commented that non-disclosure of the charges was common practice in the New Zealand banking industry at the time.
"The commission is not swayed by that argument.
"The behaviour clearly was widespread, but illegal actions can not be justified on the basis that others were doing it too."
Once again we see the points in general practice that:Ignorance of the law is not a defence
Lack of clarity in the law is not a defence
Past occurances of the same offence is not a defence against gettting charged this time
But I'm only one of many, is definately not a defence.
Given that everybody else has to play by these principles - the politicians had better start too.
Maybe it is time for more names like Lafayette and Robspierre to be entered into history.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Airline Services Agreement
I'll admit to being terribly surprised today at finding out that the third largest provider of trans-tasman flight services is effectively bound by a non-competition agreement.
Emirates, which provides around 12% of the trans-tasman flight capacity is bound in its Airline Services Agreement (which allows it to fly to New Zealand) to not materially affect the interests of New Zealand's national carrier (IE Air New Zealand). Most worrying however (given that a number of old bi-lateral airline services agreements apparently contain these clauses - that was an eye opener) is that New Zealand officials have recently sent communications to Emirates reminding them of this obligation.
If any one can find the reference to this - I believe it was actually Phil Goff from whom this missive was sent; at which point given this Governments posturing over increasing competition giving it the right to effectively confiscate private property, Labour really needs to explain why it is enforcing anti-competitive practices just because it has a shareholding in another enterprise.
I recently opined on how the Labour Government was continuing its march towards ensuring the utopian Socialist collective hidden beneath the veneer of capitalist endeavor (catch-22). It would seem that it wasn't far wrong.
Tags: catch-22, Labour, air services agreement, AirNZ, nz, new zealand, Socialism
Friday, September 22, 2006
Congratulations Labour
So what do these companies have in common:
BNZ (twice)
Origin Pacific
Air New Zealand
Feltex
other than being iconic New Zealand brands? Which others can you name that should be included?
[Edit] Add to the list as an exception:
Georgie Pie
BNZ (twice)
Origin Pacific
Air New Zealand
Feltex
other than being iconic New Zealand brands? Which others can you name that should be included?
[Edit] Add to the list as an exception:
Georgie Pie
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The Phishers are getting good!
I'm impressed - note how even once you follow the link in the email the URL looks like a paypal URL on first glance.
Just remember folks - if you get an email like this it is always better to just type the URL yourself - following links is going to get you in a world of hurt!
Just remember folks - if you get an email like this it is always better to just type the URL yourself - following links is going to get you in a world of hurt!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Prohibition, because it works?
Hattip: Stuff
A survey commissioned by the Greens earlier this year found pies, doughnuts, chips, fizzy drinks and oversize cookies were the staple items sold in school canteens.
Shock, horror?
"This fund combined with new nutrition guidelines being worked on will require schools over the next few years will only allow schools to sell food and drinks that are healthy."
Now the main point here is that those kids whose parents devolve the responsibility of food provision onto their kids will continue to do so - which is the root cause of this issue. Those parents that actually care enough to provide food rather than money tend not to have a high incidence of their children overindulging in these types of foods.
And lets face it - kids are crafty and greedy. If they have money and the school cafeteria doesn't sell pies - they will just get them from the Dairies. We saw this at the school cafeteria in New Plymouth where there were no sweets sold in the tuckshop. So kids just left school and went to the nearby dairy - yeah that was a great win getting children to sneak out of school grounds.
So the school even managed to persuade the dairy not to sell to children during school hours (and I'll bet you won't manage to do that everywhere). This didn't decrease the amount of kids spending their money on lollies though - it just delayed it until the end of the day meaning they didn't eat anything during the day, and then got their lolly fix. Again, a great win for everyone.
Lets face it - how many times has prohibition worked?
Tags: nz, new zealand, prohibition, food, subsidy
Unions argue that keeping their members informed illegal
Hattip: Stuff
I loved this gem in the latest update on the Distribution Workers strike:
The unions representing them are also taking legal action against what they allege are Progressive's attempts to "undermine collective bargaining" by sending a copy of its only offer – which was rejected – directly to union members instead of the unions.
Basically the unions are arguing that it undermines their power when information is sent directly to members rather than only being diluted via their "official channels first". Which of course is probably right. It is much harder to force people to give up weeks of their wages to fight against a proposal that they actually know the full contents of, and have the chance to get independent advice on.
Tags: nz, newzealand, union, progressive, strike, lockout
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Labour scared of money they can't steal
It has been interesting to see the Labour party continue to try and smear other opposition parties on the basis of their funding. They have always tried to complain about how they need state funding of things like election advertising to stop the likes of National beating them purely through their "deeper pockets". We will ignore (for the moment) the hypocrisy of these statements with reference to Labour's Union backers, but instead now see Labour's reaction as they are challenged by a smaller party than themselves that is recognized as not having those deep pockets - the Libertarianz.
"I'd be very surprised to learn that the Libertarianz have the financial means to pay Mr Molloy's fees. This raises significant questions about who is actually backing this case and what their motives are."
And instead of helping to support those other parties that are in even more need of political funding than themselves - yes the Libertarianz cannot help themselves to $800,000 of the public purse like Labour - they belittle the fact that they have managed to find funding themselves for their worthy cause.
You see Labour's argument about their taking funds from the public purse to battle the deep pockets of National has one major flaw. Labour has the breadth of backers to combat National in purse - it is the smaller parties of the Greens, Progressives, Libertarianz et al. that should actually be the main recipients of the public election money under Labour's arguments. Look at all their arguments about state funding of electioneering and try to follow them logically as to whether that means the largest parties should receive any funding? By their own arguments neither Labour nor National should receive public assistance, or every party regardless of size should receive the same funding.
The latter case would certainly be interesting in terms of an actual level playing field where all parties had the same allocation and could only spend that allocation and nothing more. Might actually force an election to be fought on policies with the smaller parties having a real chance to get their policies across.
But that would require some actual decorum and integrity within our political process, and so is likely to remain a pipe dream. What would your ideal election funding source and spending restriction model be? And what concessions would you make to make that feasible?
Tags: nz, newzealand, politics, Labour, Libertarianz, funding, election
Monday, September 11, 2006
Peak trash theory?
With David Farrar recently pointing out the Greens (people not party) tendency to answer everything with a new "peak" theory - I wonder how long it will take for them to point out the following plan suffers from a peak garbage problem?
Florida county plans to vaporize landfill trash
Tags: trash, landfill, power, green
Friday, September 08, 2006
Speaker of the house
Thanks to the Maori Party, the Greens and even United Future for pointing out that question time in the house is exactly that - for answering political questions.
The main problem is they and many parts of the media are still pointing partial blame on this at the National Party - however the blame here really lies completely with Labour, and more specifically the Speaker; Margaret Wilson.
It has been documented many times before now the number of complaints about Ministers failing to answer a question put to them; instead being allowed to give anything from a personal attack on the opposition to an "I couldn't comment on that" as "addressing the question". And so the question time has both been allowed to degenerate, and in fact couldn't help but to degenerate to the mess it is now in.
The minor parties here have shown the way forward. Next time any minister fails to answer the question the procedure must be:
* Raise a point of order that the question has not been addressed
* When Margaret again fails to bring the minister to order, raise a motion of no confidence in the speaker
* If the motion fails, walk out.
The opposition and coalition parties need to bring some respect back into Parliamentary proceedings. Labour won't - it is not in their best interest. They are already seen with the most derision by the general public in terms of accountability and behavior. They can only win by dragging other parties down to their level. Here is hoping that the members of all other parties will have enough decency to stay above it, and show that the "highest court of the land" can be a place of genuine debate and thinking.
Tags: nz, new zealand, Labour, politics, swine
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Mangere Bridge gets a chance to speak for all New Zealanders
Due to the inability of Labour affiliated people to observe the property rights of others, the people of Mangere Bridge now have the chance that Tamaki rejected.
That is to send a message to the Labour party in Wellington that they will not accept the endemic corruption that would appear to be steeped in their organisation, whilst simultaneously letting the Auckland City Council that their over taxation via rates is unacceptable.
Of course given the areas socio-economic status this would also equate to a message to the rest of the country that the people there are actually willing to stand on their own feet rather than relying on handouts for the majority of their per capita income.
I read with interest in the The Aucklander South the brave platform that Sylvia Taylor is standing on; "If I had my way, I wouldn't sanction social welfare for our kids under 20"
Reputedly there has been a number of South Ausklanders approach her in the past for this type of reform to help save the youth in those neighbourhoods.
It will be interesting to watch now that they are being given another chance to support that reform whether it will be taken, or prove to be empty rhetoric.
That is to send a message to the Labour party in Wellington that they will not accept the endemic corruption that would appear to be steeped in their organisation, whilst simultaneously letting the Auckland City Council that their over taxation via rates is unacceptable.
Of course given the areas socio-economic status this would also equate to a message to the rest of the country that the people there are actually willing to stand on their own feet rather than relying on handouts for the majority of their per capita income.
I read with interest in the The Aucklander South the brave platform that Sylvia Taylor is standing on; "If I had my way, I wouldn't sanction social welfare for our kids under 20"
Reputedly there has been a number of South Ausklanders approach her in the past for this type of reform to help save the youth in those neighbourhoods.
It will be interesting to watch now that they are being given another chance to support that reform whether it will be taken, or prove to be empty rhetoric.
Friday, September 01, 2006
R&R
Along the vein of my favorite topic Rights and Responsibilities, we now have the drivel from the East and Bays Courier attempting moral outrage over a pensioners rent rise.
They exclaim loudly about the 261 percent increase Ken Cameron was suddenly faced with; and pull the reader in with stories about how will he pay his $165 per week rent bill with his $200 per week pension.
But they make the fatal mistake of actually explaining the facts around the circumstances which dissolves any sympathy someone should have for Mr Cameron. You see the reason for the change in Mr Camerons rent bill from $63 per week to $165 per week was due to him losing his income related rent status. Which is because he didn't fill out the form for it.
Or more accurately he did - but with the expression of "get lost".
So the one task that he was being paid $5200 per year to do was fill out a form. One form that was delivered to him, that he knew full well needed to be completed and that he didn't do. If he can't handle the responsibility of filling out one form, why should he expect society to give him the right to carry on living in that place? This is someone that we are paying over $15,000 per year for the simple task of carrying on living, and filling out a form.
Nice work if you can get it.
Tags: nz, new zealand, rent, R&R, politics
Abuse of parliamentary letter head, or wandering blog posts.
In my previous post I was actually intending to go a slightly different direction and bring up a few more areas specifically along the lines of HC's abuse of parliamentary letter head in making a submission about the tenanting house in her area, and the interference in judicial process not being isolated to the painting saga. In fact the latter isn't even limited to our own judicial process with documents obtained under the Official Information Act showing that they've even attempted interfering in Australian cases.
But without repeating the framework of the previous post I guess I'll now need to wait for another event before heading down that line. Would seem with the issues swirling around this Government I shouldn't have to wait too long for something pertinent. Maybe I should just wait for something specific like the speaker refusing to uphold parliamentary process again?
Tags: nz, new zealand, politics, law
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Why do you always start with "PainterGate"?
OK - first I'll quickly vent that I despise the term and all the "Gates" anyway. Please can we find another way of referring to *all* those events except the actual WaterGate Scandal?
But more to the point why do all the right wing blog commentators always start their chronological lists of convention and law breaking by this Government and its officials with PainterGate? First issue I have with this is that no-one actually remembers that "scandal" for what it should be anyway. Ask anyone left / right / central / libertarian / indifferent what PainterGate was about and they will pretty much all tell you it was about HC signing her name to someone else's painting.
Which of course is the trivial and stupid thing it should have been about had HC not pressured the Attorney General about the open case using official parliamentary stationary, had HC not lied to police with regards to both the paintings whereabouts, knowledge of events, had HC not had a Secretary destroy the painting (which at that point was evidence) etc. If these were the issues brought to mind by the phrase PainterGate, then sure use it. Otherwise refer to the specific events which actually had some measure of real wrong about them. Who really cares about the "fraud" of signing her name to the painting - very few at a very academic level.
Second issue I have is when you are compiling these lists it is far better to start it from 1999 when Labour first took power - rather than waiting until 2002? This gives the impression that Labour actually waited until its 2nd term before its predilection for weighing self-interest over law and convention came to the surface.
In actual fact this surfaced in the first *months* of their first term, where they cancelled the contracts with both Timberlands and the U.S.A. F-16 purchase contracts. What raised my heckles at that time was the comments that they did so "as they could without penalty". This event while quite crucial in viewing the subsequent events in a particular light is one that very few New Zealanders attach *any* significance to. The significance is one that I do not like discussing - mainly because it is one that the stability of the free market actually depends on very few people exploiting. Which is that *anyone* can terminate virtually *any* contract *without penalty*.
You see penalty clauses in contracts are unenforceable. By law. And the maximum that can be "recovered" by anyone for breach of contract by another party is their actual economic loss. No more. Because it is a civil not criminal breach.
This is why when you look at the contracts used in the construction industry these work on the basis of large bonuses for timely delivery, and not penalties for late delivery. Because unless actual economic loss could be shown (which would frequently be difficult) then the penalty would be unenforceable.
So the explicit statement made by the Labour party at the very start of their first term was that they would look at any law or convention, and weigh up the penalty of breaching it against their personal benefit.
Sound familiar to anything recent?
Tags: nz, new zealand, politics, Labour, Liarbour
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Congratulations to the Distribution Workers Union
How does it feel knowing that you single handedly just managed to get 500 of your workers sacked?
I quite like the idea of having my groceries delivered direct from supplier to supermarket, so I'm quite glad the Distribution Union has pushed progressive towards this "novel" idea.
This would seem to be a fairly universal issue for Unions in that they believe that striking is their ultimate power. Without realizing it is frequently the means by which an employer can judge just exactly how useless to a business a certain segment is. Sure there are some sectors in which the Union actually has a true power, because its workers have real skill bases which are difficult to replicate. The irony is that those tend to be the professions in least <i>need</i> of a Union or representation.
So all that tends to happen in the low pay / low skill arena is that the Union progressively screws over its members both by taking and wasting their money directly, and by decreasing their usefulness to their employer.
Tags: nz, new zealand, union, strike
Monday, August 28, 2006
So which economy do you want to live in?
Hattip: Scoop
The Canterbury Manufacturers Association has recently gone on the offensive again against companies like IceBreaker that are proudly New Zealand owned and operated - at least as far as their high wealth operations are concerned.
The CMU is highly critical of the fact that they offload their low-wealth operations like the actual clothing manufacture onto countries like China, while retaining the design and patent operations locally.
I love Mr Walley's (from the CMU) quote:
“Yes, they may be registered in New Zealand, their shareholders benefit as do the people working on their designs but do they provide for New Zealand’s export development or contribute all they can to a reduction in the trade deficit?”
It is extremely hard to rebut a comment when it generally says everything you wanted it to in all but tone. The real question is where do we want to compete, where do we want to be as a country? I know that I would far prefer to be supporting that New Zealand company that has made the realisation that we want the high wealth value adding jobs in this country. And offload the menial, likely to be replaced through capital investment jobs elsewhere.
How are we going to reduce our trade deficit? Through increasing our labour productivity levels - something really not particularly possible in the jobs that Mr Walley wants to protect. But if the profits from IceBreakers Chinese operations are repatriated to here, then it is something highly possible. Mr Walley doesn't seem to understand that it is far better for our trade deficit to have each New Zealander earning the trade dollars from "10" Chinese workers, than only pulling in those dollars for their own work.
Mr Walley continues with "“‘Buy Kiwi Made’ is important in promoting New Zealand’s export and economic growth, it also means that you just might be buying your job, you are certainly supporting New Zealand values.”"
The question is which job do you want, and do you want your children to have - clothing design and architecture, or sitting behind a sewing machine?
Tags: nz, new zealand, trade, union
New Zealanders voting for what they want
Unfortunately it looks like this is increasingly diverging from what I would want.
The results from the Tamaki by-election for the Auckland city council are in; One corrupt Labour politician replaced by another Labour politician. There are now another 2500 people in Auckland that need to shut up and stop whining about the rates levels / increases because they just explicitly supported them.
The Auckland City Council just got the message that they are on the right track continuing to waste our ratepayers money thanks to you.
All 3 supermarkets near me have stopped stocking barn laid eggs. It would seem that despite people's rhetoric about wanting to ban cage farmed chickens they really just do not care. Given the eclectic collection of free range eggs that manages to survive I'm guessing it wouldn't have taken that many people supporting barn laid eggs for them to at least continue to be stocked. As it stands now the cages will be getting my dollar again because I'm not incensed enough to sacrifice 7 ECU's for the sake of 1 1/2 chickens happiness.
Tags: nz, new zealand, chickens
Friday, August 25, 2006
Catch-22
The New Zealand Goverment continues on its farcical march towards becoming Milo Minderbinder's "M&M enterprises", in which "everyone has a share".
Kiwibank, Kiwisaver, Air New Zealand, Vector, Transpower et al. all are increasingly pointing towards this Governments absolute goal of the Kiwi collective ownership of everything via their benevolent and enterprising Government.
My own catch-22 now lies in how do I continue to help and support a country and people to whom I am increasingly drawn to despise?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
EPMU vitriole wins the day
Hattip: Scoop / Scoop
Unfortunately it looks like the EPMU et al. campaign of lies and hyperbole has managed to convince enough people that Wayne Maps Probationary employment bill is an "attack on their rights". And so the Maori party have decided to withdraw their support for the bill meaning it is likely to be defeated rather shortly.
Workers need to wake up and realize that initiatives like this are *not* an "attack on their rights" but are attempts to actually bring realistic responsibilities back to those rights that they possess. The current climate of repealing employers rights and making the employee ever more powerful and legislated will continue to drive New Zealand down its path of foreign ownership and small business ownership.
Those people with enough entrepreneurial spirit to start their own businesses will continue to trend towards being single proprietorships, possibly expanding to partnerships, and then typically moving offshore for expansion - if that isn't where they started already. It is ludicrous that it is becoming increasingly less risky and orders of magnitude cheaper for someone to move into a partnership agreement than to hire their first employee.
Only large multi-corporates are likely to continue with the increasing hassle of employment, only they can continue to take the risk and employ the legal / HR teams that are required to deal with actually having employees. If workers think either of these trends are in their favor then they are severely mistaken.
We have already seen a number of our businesses start to replace staff with machinery due to their increasing costs - this is the one positive side effect of these moves. New Zealand needs to increase its labor productivity if we are to regain any kind of comparative standing in the OECD. However it would be nice to be able to have a domestic manufacturing segment rather than watching them all (Jack Links et al) slowly collapse and shut down, it would be nice to continue having a domestic clothing market, car assembly - in fact almost anything other than food and aluminum would be good.
As we continue to make this less of a reality for ourselves, as we punish the entrepreneur for the lack of vision, lack of risk tolerance, and lack of intellect for their workers we will see ourselves continue to decline until we are that prison colony at the end of the Earth that Gene Roddenberry predicted.
Tags: nz, politics, employment
Monday, August 21, 2006
Pay it back - IRD style
A further 4% penalty will be charged if there is still an amount of unpaid tax (including penalties), at the end of the 7th day from the due date. Every month after the due date, a further 1% will be added to any unpaid amount (including penalties)."
Thanks to Insolent Prick for his discourse on the situation: link
However the biggest disgust that I have had over this entire episode is that politicians in general seem to think that just "paying it back" would be restitution enough (those that you can get to admit a theoretical guilt from).
However there is nowhere else, and no other party that can play by those rules. In particular the money that was spent from the public purse is coerced under the penalty structure above.
Note that it is worse if you were avoiding tax - this is just the penalties for not paying on time - which includes if you didn't know you had a bill to pay. Which can occur up to 7 years after the fact. Even if it takes a court case to establish some unclear portion of tax legislation which you could have justifiably thought you were in the right over.
What really needs to happen is for all political parties who abused the parliamentary services funding and electoral spending caps to be treated in the same way as every person and business in the country. They should be audited for the last 7 years and made to pay for every cent spent unjustifiably, with penalties and back interest.
This is the threat that they as politicians and political parties have created. It would be nice to see them see what that feels like.
Tags: IRD, tax, political, nz, parties
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
