Thursday, January 17, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
How many NZ jobs did The Hobbit create?
How many NZ jobs did The Hobbit create?
Unknown, and yet still more than the DPB...
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
supply and demand nrtr
It's a rare day that I find myself agreeing with NRT - but this is one of them.
Of course he might not support the inverse of his own post if it was businesses calling for the minimum wage to be lowered!
Sony showing how a phone is done
Meet The 5-inch, Quad-Core Xperia Z: Sony’s Stunning Answer To The iPhone 5 And Galaxy S3
All it needs is the same carrier support as the Apple Samsung duopoly and this will be a class act
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
In all the iPhone vs Samsung press war its a shame real phones don't get mentioned more
Per These Leaked CES Pics, Sony Is Actually Capable Of Making A Memorable Android Phone
I've got an Xperia SL - kicks the pants off an iPhone 5 or Samsung s3 but at $nz 500 it's also only half the price!
Monday, December 31, 2012
IRD Secure Site Still Down
Sunday, December 30, 2012
So where is the Greens response?
One of my pet peeves with the Green Party within New Zealand is their continued lack of response let alone leadership on the worlds largest environmental issue.
They seem to be able to propose measures like killing 25 percent of the countries cows - yet when it comes to the root causes like over breeding they are spineless and silent at best.
At worst they generally support this type of activity belying their true communist roots and exposing their green facade for what it is - facile and disposable.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Blissful ignorance
The iMac In A World Of MacBooks On The Brink Of iPads
This "tech" post encapsulates so many of my pet peeves with the Apple / Mac love fest its actually quite amusing.
However the "tech writer" manages to encapsulate it all in one quote:
"Another element the iMac gives you that a MacBook does not (at least not yet) is the option for a “Fusion Drive”. Marketing terms aside, this is a great method of compromise that Apple has come up with. Essentially, you have both a solid-state flash drive and a traditional hard drive in the machine, and software found in a slightly altered version of OS X Mountain Lion determines what data should go where automatically (based on your usage). This allows you to have the speed of SSD with the storage volumes of a regular hard drive."
You see hybrid hard drives (as they are generally known) have been around since Seagate released them in October 2006. And yes that 6 is not a typo. This tech is actually older than Facebook (literally) but because it's got an apple on it it's suddenly hot. To twits like this anyway...
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Brilliant backup service with a fatal flaw
SocialSafe, The Social Media Back-Up Tool, Raises $400K To Out-Archive Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn
Socialsafe is providing a fantastic service for anyone conscious that they might like to actually find that tweet or post about when their child's first tooth was. Especially when said child gets old enough to ask about things like that (typically when they have kids, so ask yourself how soon you want that to be...)
However I do have one major beef with it - the client is written in Adobe Air - which might not mean alot to most people. But this is a language / framework that has already begun to be deprecated (ie killed but in a progressive slow fashion) by its only maintainer Adobe. So I have to question - why would you backup your social life using a tool that's already dead?
Friday, December 21, 2012
Thursday, December 20, 2012
A good question
In that the answer is "because it's a bloody stupid law". And just because something is law doesn't make it right.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Green logic
Only the Greens could reason that increasing taxes on petrol results in locking more people into a car dependent lifestyle. While I can understand them decrying building of motorways as a philosophical standpoint to suggest that using petrol taxes to do so is a bad thing just demonstrates the total mess this country will be in if they ever have a genuine say in running it.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Compensation for rendition
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/compensation-for-rendition.html
Thursday, December 13, 2012
NRTR
"The Government actually doesn't care about Kim Dotcom"
Alright - in the past I've always been frustrated by No Right Turns no comments policy, so from now on I'll try to create a post for every article to allow conversation to occur
Let loose people :D
Food for schools - done right
Fonterra rolls out its Milk For Schools programme nationwide, following success in Northland
Showing once again that it's not all about Government and tax
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
A worthwhile thought piece
Bad Incentives That Work Quite Well: The Opportunity Cost of Political Partisanship
Worth reading regardless of your particular political partisanship
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Oh please make this true
Chris Avellone blesses inXile's Planescape: Torment successor • News • PC • Eurogamer.net
Planescape torment is one of the few RPGs that can hold a candle to Daggerfall. Heres hoping they can stay true to the spirit and make something even better.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
IRD tax grab stupidity incarnate
I'm desperately hoping the National government in power can put paid to this piece of ridiculous interpretation. Frankly there can be no sympathy with the IRD over cases of tax avoidance when they throw out their moral standpoint in the most spectacular of ways. There is no way that anyone who has ever traveled for business would argue that a hotel room was a perk, and I'd love them to show how in the majority of cases an employee was able to reduce their costs by the "income" they are suddenly being attributed.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The benefit of the iPad
Is that despite its absurdity of revolutionary conformance, it allows the consumption of challenging and nonConformant thought.
Thanks to Stanford for the online publication of what must always be treasures, and never beholden to copyright
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Friday, June 01, 2012
Our thoughts are with you
Nothing else will suffice our hearts bleed for your loss
S and T will get long hugs this weekend
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Meet ACTA: PIPA and SOPA's Big Brother
I just signed this urgent petition from Access calling on the European Parliament to vote NO on a dangerous international treaty, ACTA. I'm forwarding this to you because of how important it is that we stop it, so please join me and the thousands from around the world and sign below. Continue reading below the link for what Access has to say about ACTA:
Heres the link: https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta
"All of the things that you and I enjoy about using the Internet, like the ability to speak freely and widespread access to information, is under threat with a dangerous new international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This intellectual property agreement, which has already been signed by several countries, will force ISPs and websites to track our every move, turn over our personal information, and report our activity to the government, all in the name of copyright protection.
The European Parliament still has to approve ACTA for it to go into effect around the world. If they vote NO, then ACTA will be effectively dismantled -- even in countries that have already signed it. We helped bring down SOPA and PIPA in the US, now let's turn the fight to ACTA. Now matter where you live, call on the EU Parliament to take a stand and vote “NO” on ACTA!"
For more information on ACTA, go here: https://www.accessnow.org/what-is-acta
Heres the link: https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/just-say-no-to-acta
"All of the things that you and I enjoy about using the Internet, like the ability to speak freely and widespread access to information, is under threat with a dangerous new international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. This intellectual property agreement, which has already been signed by several countries, will force ISPs and websites to track our every move, turn over our personal information, and report our activity to the government, all in the name of copyright protection.
The European Parliament still has to approve ACTA for it to go into effect around the world. If they vote NO, then ACTA will be effectively dismantled -- even in countries that have already signed it. We helped bring down SOPA and PIPA in the US, now let's turn the fight to ACTA. Now matter where you live, call on the EU Parliament to take a stand and vote “NO” on ACTA!"
For more information on ACTA, go here: https://www.accessnow.org/what-is-acta
Thursday, January 05, 2012
No-give, No-take in Israel
An excellent idea (fully in line with Libertarian theory) to increase the rate of organ donation.
Of course there is also the selfish side that I've had my organ donor status as yes on my drivers license for 14 years :D
No-give, No-take in Israel:
Of course there is also the selfish side that I've had my organ donor status as yes on my drivers license for 14 years :D
No-give, No-take in Israel:
In Entrepreneurial Economics I argued for a “no give, no take” system for organ donation–people who signed their organ donor cards would be given priority over non-signers should they one day need an organ. The idea has an element of justice to it but the primary goal is to increase the incentive to sign one’s organ donor card.
Israel recently adopted this policy by giving extra points on the allocation system to people who previously signed the organ donor card. In the case of kidneys, for example, two points (on a 0-18 point scale) are given if the candidate had three or more years previous to being listed signed their organ card. One point is given if a first-degree relative had signed and 3.5 points if a first-degree relative had previously donated.
It’s early but so far the policy appears to be very successful:
Due to the population’s surge of interest in obtaining an organ donor card, the Adi-National Israel Transplant Center has extended through March 31 the deadline to register as a donor and receive special benefits.
…During the past few weeks, Adi’s phone system has collapsed several times due to the high demand.
Since Adi decided to give preferential treatment to those registering as a potential organ donor, tens of thousands of people have registered, raising the number of potential donors to over 600,000. Until last year, the rate of registration was among the lowest in the Western world.
Hat tip to David Undis whose excellent group Lifesharers (I am an adviser) is implementing a private version of no-give, no take in the United States.
Here is my piece on Life Saving Incentives and here are previous MR posts on organ donation.
The Problem With Patents (Infographic)
What is amazing through this is that even though the patent system often seems to grant patents for absurdly obvious things (and ignoring prior art / visualisations) - is how complex the process is when there is a genuine breakthrough that deserves protection.
So it would seem to be failing on that front as well.
So it would seem to be failing on that front as well.
Source: http://frugaldad.com
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The next charter school
With the newly announced ability to setup charter schools - how upset would anyone in New Zealand be to have one of these replace their local?
Friday, January 21, 2011
A great way to give
Why not give a little bit of time for your favorite charity (which of course would be Kiwi Flora & Fauna Savings Trust...)
Join Buzz the People and they will donate to your selected charity in reward for answering occasional email surveys. You get quizzed all the time so why not use this to expand the community?
"Buzz.ThePeople is a group of New Zealanders who tell us what they think by doing the occasional survey.
In doing so our members go into draws to win prizes, donate their points to charity, raise money for their schools or redeem their reward points for vouchers."
Just remember to select Kiwi Flora & Fauna Savings Trust!
Join Buzz the People and they will donate to your selected charity in reward for answering occasional email surveys. You get quizzed all the time so why not use this to expand the community?
"Buzz.ThePeople is a group of New Zealanders who tell us what they think by doing the occasional survey.
In doing so our members go into draws to win prizes, donate their points to charity, raise money for their schools or redeem their reward points for vouchers."
Just remember to select Kiwi Flora & Fauna Savings Trust!
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Make your submissions now
Good on the BNZ for showing why capitalism ultimately does work when the consumers aren't greedy;
Get your submissions in now and lets use this to get some trees in the ground!
Get your submissions in now and lets use this to get some trees in the ground!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Promoting a good cause
I'm sure more charities should take this view of their causes being more persistent than the current group of funders!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Not often I agree with Labour
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10620043
But I'm behind this one 100%!!
"We are generally dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant than any other group of people in New Zealand. We know the problem, but what's the solution? Well let's repeal the Foreshore and Seabed and put the F&S into Maori title. We can be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant at the beach. That'll make all the difference." (Labour MP Kelvin Davis)
Friday, October 02, 2009
Change of direction
Okay - so I've been extremely quiet for a while; seems I've fallen into the trap of most new bloggers. You start a blog full of passion, thoughts and opinions on a subject - and then find that you're going to start repeating yourself pretty quickly :D
So I can't guarantee that this is a coming back to life, or a single green shoot in the barren wilderness but here we go - link whoring a pet project, for the purposes of seeing if anyone else actually thinks this is a problem they face:
We are recruiting suppliers for www.mercado.co.nz to assist people finding exotic or esoteric items. Basically things like Quinoa grain, Channa flour, Wild Rice, Artichokes, etc - all those things that you don't easily find at the local supermarket; or don't know what to do with if you do.
So the first question would be - is this something you actually find an issue; I know I'd love a central place I can go to find those ingredients I need for a recipe I've found - but what does everyone else do?
Then - what are the things you've had to hunt for recently that either took forever to find, or you never did? I know fresh rabbit ranks up there for me; even knowing 5 places I can get it doesn't make it any easier when I actually want it!
Obviously mainly interested in New Zealand experiences - but give me your international insights too :D
Monday, March 30, 2009
So how come we don;t hear about these?
The news always seems to be full about jobs being lost from New Zealand - especially when these are lost through offshoring; and yet when one of the major Australian banks decides to move 100 jobs this way across the tasman we hear nothing - why is that?
Sure they're only call center jobs - but that didn't stop the outcry when Telecom was involved - so why the media silence this time? Perhaps because it might upset their doom and gloom slant on the world...
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Break Fees and Lawyers
Of course the one set of parties that has remained (incriminatingly) silent on most of this debate is the law society and the lawyers;
They could at least have helped clear up the confusion around the legal obligations of the banks preventing them doing what most are currently accusing them of;
However perhaps it is because ultimately it was their responsibility to their client to properly explain those clauses in the contract they were collecting their fees for?
The Break Fee Debate
ITs good to see the banks are hanging tough on break fees - although I'm disappointed in Bill English's proposed pressure on KiwiBank to potentially lower these.
Lets be clear here as there has been a huge amount of morons commenting on this subject when they have no actual concept:
The banks are not making money out of this - there is no margin in the break fee, it is genuine costs relating to the fact that people are wanting to intentionally breach contracts.
In fact the CCCFA (Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003) both means it is illegal for them to make money on the break fee - and (to put another misinformation to bed) sets out how they should calculate the fee.
There is ambiguity in the law as to which rate the lender should use as their relending rate - If your original contract was for 5 years fixed rate, you are now 2 years in the lender may be relending at the variable, the 5 year or the 3 year rate? However while this is unclear in the law which must be used, it is stipulated in the contract.
Which in the end is much of the point here - how are people legitimately thinking they should be able to walk out of a legally binding contract without paying the other parties costs? These pillocks are effectively arguing that when the rates were rising the banks should have been able to give the homeowner (EG) $4000 and then say "sorry, but you're back on the variable (3% higher) variable rate now". Because the fix works both ways.
In the end the risk is 2 ways - if the rates had spiked rather than dropped would you still be complaining about being on a fixed rate? Furtermore is it the bank that has dropped the OCR? (or raised it initially)?
The only way around it is to either align the term of the fixed rate to the term of the mortgage or go completely variable rate - but I don't see these plonkers actually going for either of these options. Unfortunatly the nanny state seems to haev won in its efforts to create a nation of whiners that not only thinks they can have their cake and eat it too - but actually have someone else bake it for free in the first place.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Revisting Kiwibank (to be done...)
It will be interesting to revisit the question of banks and adequecy given the apparent meltdown in the global financial markets over the past period of time - not least to contrast the movements of this "pillar" in the NZ market versus the exposed international banks; but also versus my pet favorite TSB. Not least to see whether the inclusion of KiwiBank by the media in the "major banks" categorisation is warranted, as versus the exclusion of both TSB and HSBC from this reporting...
Sunday, August 10, 2008
KiwiBank - the safest haven. Tui Ad in the making
I have been intrigued by the rumors being floated recently - mainly seeming to originate from the political left about how Kiwibank is the one safe bank at the moment; especially in this time of sub prime debt.
However putting aside the point that the only registered bank to have previously become bankrupt in New Zealand was the BNZ while it was a Labour Government controlled SOE, I decided to do a bit more digging.
And find that according to the Reserve Banks own data Kiwibank actually has the worst without exception level of capital reserves. Kiwibank only hold 7.2% of Tier 1 assets and 9.5% of Tier 2; in comparison to 14.94% and 15.58% for RaboBank and a huge 17.66% for both Tier 1 and 2 held by the TSB.
Going even further Kiwibank doesn't even have a provision for impaired assets - so despite the current marketing downturn they are providing for no losses due to -ve equity. This is comparison to the smallest provision by any other bank being the ASB at over 3% of profit; with most banks allowing for between 5 - 8%. Personally the bank I would see as most susceptible to housing loan shocks would be the one making absolutely no allowance nor financial planning for it whatsoever...
Also of curiosity has to be the 5.3% of Kiwibanks credit exposure that is across only 13 people?
So really one has to question how the least profitable, lowest profit on assets, lowest capital reserves, no provisions bank is the safe one? But when it comes to political left and KiwiBank it seems logic isn't really necessary - hence why we have the white elephant in the first place.
However putting aside the point that the only registered bank to have previously become bankrupt in New Zealand was the BNZ while it was a Labour Government controlled SOE, I decided to do a bit more digging.
And find that according to the Reserve Banks own data Kiwibank actually has the worst without exception level of capital reserves. Kiwibank only hold 7.2% of Tier 1 assets and 9.5% of Tier 2; in comparison to 14.94% and 15.58% for RaboBank and a huge 17.66% for both Tier 1 and 2 held by the TSB.
Going even further Kiwibank doesn't even have a provision for impaired assets - so despite the current marketing downturn they are providing for no losses due to -ve equity. This is comparison to the smallest provision by any other bank being the ASB at over 3% of profit; with most banks allowing for between 5 - 8%. Personally the bank I would see as most susceptible to housing loan shocks would be the one making absolutely no allowance nor financial planning for it whatsoever...
Also of curiosity has to be the 5.3% of Kiwibanks credit exposure that is across only 13 people?
So really one has to question how the least profitable, lowest profit on assets, lowest capital reserves, no provisions bank is the safe one? But when it comes to political left and KiwiBank it seems logic isn't really necessary - hence why we have the white elephant in the first place.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Vote early and Vote Now
An interesting little meme going on at the moment at Jimungo;
Sign up now at http://pulse.jimungo.com/ and vote in the New Zealand Virtual Election.
Should be a little bit more interesting than the rest of the polls about to swamp us heading into the election; although I doubt any more accurate :D
Sign up now at http://pulse.jimungo.com/ and vote in the New Zealand Virtual Election.
Should be a little bit more interesting than the rest of the polls about to swamp us heading into the election; although I doubt any more accurate :D
Friday, July 25, 2008
Connected or No?
At a press conference in Auckland, he has told media that the stories published this week about undeclared donations are "unsubstantiated rubbish" and his party has acted legally at all times.
But if we connect the dots between this funding scandal and the parliamentary funding scandal then his party has only acted legally in a retrospective manner...
Again if we start to look at the chain of behavior it becomes even harder to believe Peters version of events...
But if we connect the dots between this funding scandal and the parliamentary funding scandal then his party has only acted legally in a retrospective manner...
Again if we start to look at the chain of behavior it becomes even harder to believe Peters version of events...
"Rich Prick" Prime Minister?
The NZ Herald today reports on John Keys inclusion in the NBR Rich list at a net worth of $50 million. Certainly makes one wonder if the "Rich Prick" can survive this story and the inevitable political scrutiny this will entail - especially in New Zealand's infamous tall poppy environment.
For mime; I certainly hope so. For those that cling to the envious politics of the left - I really have to ask; who is better qualified to show us the way to prosperity - an economics teacher with less reported assets than me? Or the guy going from State House to $50 million with no lotto ticket in sight?
To compare the PM role; the guy who for all intensive purposes has retired and can do this because he wants to for the betterment of others, or the shrew who has had no other career and must desperately cling to power to earn the only living she has ever known?
Which I will admit highlights my main enduring distaste for the politicians of the left (I have different issues with the politics...); is the wonder how those whose endeavors have been confined to the ivory towers of academia and politics can ever relate and actually understand those of us without?
For mime; I certainly hope so. For those that cling to the envious politics of the left - I really have to ask; who is better qualified to show us the way to prosperity - an economics teacher with less reported assets than me? Or the guy going from State House to $50 million with no lotto ticket in sight?
To compare the PM role; the guy who for all intensive purposes has retired and can do this because he wants to for the betterment of others, or the shrew who has had no other career and must desperately cling to power to earn the only living she has ever known?
Which I will admit highlights my main enduring distaste for the politicians of the left (I have different issues with the politics...); is the wonder how those whose endeavors have been confined to the ivory towers of academia and politics can ever relate and actually understand those of us without?
Will Labour still take responsibility for pay rate changes?
(Hattip: NZHerald)
"A new survey of pay rates shows a dramatic deterioration for those at the bottom of the heap, while rates for skilled workers are outpacing rampant inflation."
Historically as New Zealand was undergoing the best ever commodity prices we have experienced, the dairy boom and unprecedented growth Labour was quick to take responsibility for every survey showing an increase in wage rates - especially where this was in the lower income bands.
Why am I not surprised there is deafening silence from them regarding the fact that the predicted issues with their stewardship are being exposed now that the bubble has popped?
"A new survey of pay rates shows a dramatic deterioration for those at the bottom of the heap, while rates for skilled workers are outpacing rampant inflation."
Historically as New Zealand was undergoing the best ever commodity prices we have experienced, the dairy boom and unprecedented growth Labour was quick to take responsibility for every survey showing an increase in wage rates - especially where this was in the lower income bands.
Why am I not surprised there is deafening silence from them regarding the fact that the predicted issues with their stewardship are being exposed now that the bubble has popped?
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Mallard admits Labour is completely incompetent
Hattip: NZ Herald
Some experts have said that total remuneration is fair. However, Mr Mallard said the Government didn't expect to see differences in take-home pay.
So Labour didn't even look across as far as Australia when designing KiwiSaver?
I guess we have seen this before when they have made bold statements that they think they are doing a good job - but sorry this is the height of incompetence and ignorance to which Mallard is admitting.
Also I hope he doesn't believe his line that the Government is reimbursing employers fully for the contribution? I know I predicted that would be the Government line when they put in the phased approach such that before the election the employer contribution had only reached 1% and the tax kickback would match that. But unfortunately despite what Labour thinks of employers we actually do plan to retain our employees for as long as possible and so we do have to think of the 2% next year, the 3% the following year et al.
Just because Labour is too stupid to look ahead and read consequences doesn't mean everyone else is.
Some experts have said that total remuneration is fair. However, Mr Mallard said the Government didn't expect to see differences in take-home pay.
So Labour didn't even look across as far as Australia when designing KiwiSaver?
I guess we have seen this before when they have made bold statements that they think they are doing a good job - but sorry this is the height of incompetence and ignorance to which Mallard is admitting.
Also I hope he doesn't believe his line that the Government is reimbursing employers fully for the contribution? I know I predicted that would be the Government line when they put in the phased approach such that before the election the employer contribution had only reached 1% and the tax kickback would match that. But unfortunately despite what Labour thinks of employers we actually do plan to retain our employees for as long as possible and so we do have to think of the 2% next year, the 3% the following year et al.
Just because Labour is too stupid to look ahead and read consequences doesn't mean everyone else is.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Inflation
Sparc has over 55% of its staff earning over $100 K.
Average Public sector wages are now 130 % of Private sector.
Inflation is imported and the fault of the Reserve Bank? Yeah Right.
Average Public sector wages are now 130 % of Private sector.
Inflation is imported and the fault of the Reserve Bank? Yeah Right.
So was the truckers protest in violation of the EFA?
Just out of contrariness this morning I'd like to know whether the truckers were in contravention of the EFA? Especially given the number of explicitly anti-Annette King banners that were hanging off various rigs et al; and the number of references from the various spokespeople towards the upcoming election; one would find it hard not to draw the conclusion that they were attempting to influence general opinion against the kinds of party that would tax without warning...
And I certainly didn't see any references to authorised financial agents - but I'll bet running that many trucks about wasn't especially cheap in terms of spending thresholds either? (By definition given what the protest was about).
However on the point of the object of the protest itself: Even worse than Labour's willingness to arbitrarily raise the Road User Charges without warning - has to have been their absolute lack of comprehension as to why they were being challenged over it. Their blustering on about it needing to be done etc shows a complete disconnect from what people were saying - especially about the lack of warning. And of course Annette Kings attempts to obfuscate by asking whether people wanted less roads and maintenance: sorry honey you can leave the road user charges where they are and still give us the same amount of roads and maintenance. But that's not a point that any Labour minister seems to get now is it?
And as an (unfortunate) answer to her rhetorical question she should look at the results from the transit survey in Auckland regarding bringing forward the Western ring road through tolls; the answer to that was (again unfortunately) a resounding NO - and that was when people were feeling a whole lot more secure in their jobs and interest and inflation hadn't yet started to bite. But again - since when does what the public want actually matter to Labour?
And I certainly didn't see any references to authorised financial agents - but I'll bet running that many trucks about wasn't especially cheap in terms of spending thresholds either? (By definition given what the protest was about).
However on the point of the object of the protest itself: Even worse than Labour's willingness to arbitrarily raise the Road User Charges without warning - has to have been their absolute lack of comprehension as to why they were being challenged over it. Their blustering on about it needing to be done etc shows a complete disconnect from what people were saying - especially about the lack of warning. And of course Annette Kings attempts to obfuscate by asking whether people wanted less roads and maintenance: sorry honey you can leave the road user charges where they are and still give us the same amount of roads and maintenance. But that's not a point that any Labour minister seems to get now is it?
And as an (unfortunate) answer to her rhetorical question she should look at the results from the transit survey in Auckland regarding bringing forward the Western ring road through tolls; the answer to that was (again unfortunately) a resounding NO - and that was when people were feeling a whole lot more secure in their jobs and interest and inflation hadn't yet started to bite. But again - since when does what the public want actually matter to Labour?
Friday, July 04, 2008
How disconnected can you get?
I felt a sense of bewilderment and amazement this morning as I read through the headlines related to the Government, its actions and the populaces reactions.
How can you be that disconnected that while you are hiking road user charges to the point the Truckies revolt ala France (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519878)
and creating legislation to hike petrol prices yet again (by city councils) (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10519903)
you can still have the level of cognitive dissonance to turn around and say the Reserve Bank is failing to contain inflation pressures and needs new tools (without coming up with any suggestions mind you)... (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10519838)
How long does it take this Government to realize that the only tool the Reserve Bank needs is a finance minister with more clues than a history teacher? One that can draw the conclusion hiking petrol and transport costs = higher inflation. On this point the history teacher even seems to be failing his own subject - it's not even predictions that are needed for that conclusion.
How can you be that disconnected that while you are hiking road user charges to the point the Truckies revolt ala France (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519878)
and creating legislation to hike petrol prices yet again (by city councils) (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10519903)
you can still have the level of cognitive dissonance to turn around and say the Reserve Bank is failing to contain inflation pressures and needs new tools (without coming up with any suggestions mind you)... (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10519838)
How long does it take this Government to realize that the only tool the Reserve Bank needs is a finance minister with more clues than a history teacher? One that can draw the conclusion hiking petrol and transport costs = higher inflation. On this point the history teacher even seems to be failing his own subject - it's not even predictions that are needed for that conclusion.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
So there's still no energy crisis - right?
hattip: NZ Herald
But don't worry guys; there's no possibility of a crisis - because Labour says so.
And if the weather does decide to grace us with some water and save us (even though the storms so far keep missing...) - don't confuse being saved by chance with actually making the right call. The banks made huge profits off low doc loans until the end...
"Lake Hawea, near Wanaka, could reach its minimum 338m level within days, prompting a warning by residents about the environmental cost if more water is taken.
Contact Energy operates the dams and can take another 2m of water, to 336m, if the tight power supply situation continues."
Cool - so in 2 metres time one of our major Hydro stations stops operating. And to be specific 2 meters without rain is a couple of days production.But don't worry guys; there's no possibility of a crisis - because Labour says so.
And if the weather does decide to grace us with some water and save us (even though the storms so far keep missing...) - don't confuse being saved by chance with actually making the right call. The banks made huge profits off low doc loans until the end...
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Of mice and men
We have been testing out a new mousetrap (incidentally known as "the better mousetrap") at home for a few days now. Certainly have to attest to its efficacy (using molasses or peanut butter - this whole cheese thing is a dud...), given that we have been averaging a dead mouse each day.
However the more disturbing side of this is that it turns out that as much as mice like peanut butter it would appear that rats like mice - so rather than disposing of a mouse each day, we're disposing as much of a mouse as was encased in the trap (typically a head or tail only). Of course I'm only hoping it's the rats - because the thought of it being other mice is even more disturbing.
Couldn't help but think of the Labour party as I was disposing of the latest head however - and wondering how long until they do the same; and show who are the men, mice and rats. Given previous form my bet is mainly on the latter.
However the more disturbing side of this is that it turns out that as much as mice like peanut butter it would appear that rats like mice - so rather than disposing of a mouse each day, we're disposing as much of a mouse as was encased in the trap (typically a head or tail only). Of course I'm only hoping it's the rats - because the thought of it being other mice is even more disturbing.
Couldn't help but think of the Labour party as I was disposing of the latest head however - and wondering how long until they do the same; and show who are the men, mice and rats. Given previous form my bet is mainly on the latter.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
One set of price rises I'm happy about
(hattip: NZ Herald)
Daily parking fees for central Auckland workers can reach almost seven times those in outer Auckland, a Herald on Sunday survey has found.
Drivers who pay the earlybird rate at Wilson Parking's ANZ Centre on Albert St pay $20 - compared with $3 for all-day street parking in neighbouring Manukau and Waitakere.
Compare those hefty fees with Hamilton, where one Wilson car park charges $2 for the first hour, and $4.50 to $6.50 for earlybird parking, depending on the day. In Wellington, earlybirds spots at Wilson's Cuba St carpark cost only $8, while in Hereford St, Christchurch, parks cost $4 an hour, or $10 for earlybirds. In Dunedin, you can park for up to 10 hours in a Wilson car park for $7, while Nelson's council parking lots charge just 50c an hour.
All I can think is that it is about time the Auckland City Council stopped using our rates to subsidize the parking costs of others. Lets face it - why do the apartment dwellers of Auckland City Central - or all those that live within the boundaries of ACC (Auckland City Council) have to subsidise the true costs of parking for all those North Shore residents and Manukau City residents who choose to work in the city? Because ultimately working outside the CBD is a movement that should be cherished - letting people pay the true commercial cost of parking will ultimately help to ease congestion and improve CBD property prices as public transport usage increases, people working alternative hours increases, and businesses ultimately start relocating as employee pressure mounts.
All of which is good for the economy, households and environment.
The only people who lose out of this are those too thick to follow the point that paying through rates is still paying. And judging from Labours current polling we might be finally getting that message through.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Labour's economic management success
This past week we are starting to see the successes of Labour's economic management in helping the lower and middle class of New Zealand get ahead:
Other data collected by property experts shows mortgagee sales nationally rising almost 20 per cent in the past week as banks foreclose on families and property investors hit by crippling interest rates and the rising cost of living.
Labour - creating equality through bankruptcy
Other data collected by property experts shows mortgagee sales nationally rising almost 20 per cent in the past week as banks foreclose on families and property investors hit by crippling interest rates and the rising cost of living.
Labour - creating equality through bankruptcy
Why you won't see any true affordable housing
CLARK'S EMPIRE
Assets
* Townhouse: Wellington
* House: Auckland
* Apartment: Christchurch
* Investment property: Rodney district
* House: United Kingdom
* Beneficial interest in Burke Trust and FG Clark Family Trust
* Funds in Government Superannuation scheme
* Bank of New Zealand bank deposits
And just as we have seen what happens to Boarding Houses that try to open in HC's suburb; roads that are going to go near her; airports changing ownership in the same city et al - you can bet changes that might affect the prices of her investment properties aren't going to go through any time soon...
Perks
DPF has raised some interesting points around whether all of MP's perks are really just expenses - and therefore whether they should be subject to public scrutiny.
While I can empathize with his sentiments that there is a difference between a true business related expense and a perk - I cannot relate that this makes either classification any less worthy of disclosure. While any employer will generally "pay for your accommodation, if your job requires you to stay overnight away from home"; this is still something that the employer (which is in this case the public) will have visibility of - and does still form part of the package of being an MP.
Just as my meal expenses when away on business are just expense reimbursement - but are still a perk of the job.
Of course where I completely disagree in terms of his classifications used to determine expense / perk is around the travel reimbursements for spouse / family. Where one MP is able to make an expense claim on the basis of family status and another is not - this is a perk.
While I can empathize with his sentiments that there is a difference between a true business related expense and a perk - I cannot relate that this makes either classification any less worthy of disclosure. While any employer will generally "pay for your accommodation, if your job requires you to stay overnight away from home"; this is still something that the employer (which is in this case the public) will have visibility of - and does still form part of the package of being an MP.
Just as my meal expenses when away on business are just expense reimbursement - but are still a perk of the job.
Of course where I completely disagree in terms of his classifications used to determine expense / perk is around the travel reimbursements for spouse / family. Where one MP is able to make an expense claim on the basis of family status and another is not - this is a perk.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Ghosts
When your favorite artist (NIN / Trent Reznor - really what is the difference) not only releases a new album, but releases it for free then you've got to at least mention it:
http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home
What makes this release a bit unique is the opportunity to download for free, for fee, order on double CD or a deluxe pack (sorry the super deluxes sold out on the first day :-( )
Now while I download I just hope it's as good as the previous works...
http://ghosts.nin.com/main/home
What makes this release a bit unique is the opportunity to download for free, for fee, order on double CD or a deluxe pack (sorry the super deluxes sold out on the first day :-( )
Now while I download I just hope it's as good as the previous works...
Why not do what is effective?
Further to my pervious post on the Auckland City Council's removal of its own obligations one must really wonder why bureaucracies insist on doing those things that sound good but are pointless in practice.
First case in point would be the:
declaration of an area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua reserve to be an area in which dogs are to be leashed at all times.
This is due to the perceived danger to the wildlife in the reconstructed wetlands in this area.
Now I wouldn't have much of an issue for this except that the area they are talking about is directly bounded by residential properties; and is otherwise an off leash dog exercise area. The problem you may ask? There is no restrictions on cats in the residential properties. If you can't figure out the problem from there, maybe you should stand for the next council election...
First case in point would be the:
declaration of an area of approximately 1 hectare on the northern side of Waiatarua reserve to be an area in which dogs are to be leashed at all times.
This is due to the perceived danger to the wildlife in the reconstructed wetlands in this area.
Now I wouldn't have much of an issue for this except that the area they are talking about is directly bounded by residential properties; and is otherwise an off leash dog exercise area. The problem you may ask? There is no restrictions on cats in the residential properties. If you can't figure out the problem from there, maybe you should stand for the next council election...
Auckland Dog Owners Take Heed
Auckland City Council as taken it upon themselves to change their policy and hence bylaws; and as is their want they have undertaken this in a somewhat duplicitous manner.
Please note they state that:
Clause 7 of the dogs policy stated that the council would review the size and availability of off-leash dog exercise areas every three years and as part of the council's strategic growth management process.
And that these changes are merely in response to this;
The proposed dogs policy is in response to this undertaking.
So why is the 5th "minor change" to reflect the "requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the needs of the community" to:
remove the obligation to review the off-leash exercise areas every three years?
If nothing else oppose this duplicitous undertaking of the council to remove one of the few remaining rights as a dog owner we hold!
Of course they are probably just trying to hide their own astounding levels of incompetence. Given that the "Designated dog exercise areas" map they have sent out to support their changes show no sign of Flatrock reserve (our local dog exercise area), and still prominantly shows Fisher Park on Carbine Road. I'm sure Coca-Cola Amatil would be more than happy to open their gates to a horde of dog owners given that the council sold the park to them nearly 3 years ago (Councils own press release here) - and they have subsequently built a warehouse on it...
(PS online coucil link to dog exercise areas).
Please note they state that:
Clause 7 of the dogs policy stated that the council would review the size and availability of off-leash dog exercise areas every three years and as part of the council's strategic growth management process.
And that these changes are merely in response to this;
The proposed dogs policy is in response to this undertaking.
So why is the 5th "minor change" to reflect the "requirements of the Dog Control Act 1996 and the needs of the community" to:
remove the obligation to review the off-leash exercise areas every three years?
If nothing else oppose this duplicitous undertaking of the council to remove one of the few remaining rights as a dog owner we hold!
Of course they are probably just trying to hide their own astounding levels of incompetence. Given that the "Designated dog exercise areas" map they have sent out to support their changes show no sign of Flatrock reserve (our local dog exercise area), and still prominantly shows Fisher Park on Carbine Road. I'm sure Coca-Cola Amatil would be more than happy to open their gates to a horde of dog owners given that the council sold the park to them nearly 3 years ago (Councils own press release here) - and they have subsequently built a warehouse on it...
(PS online coucil link to dog exercise areas).
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Anyone still slightly worried by this?
Hattip: Nz Herald
A new dawn of internet competition has arrived - [...]
Orcon this week unveiled the first of New Zealand's truly "unbundled" products - where a customer can get a phone line and fast broadband without going near Telecom.
It comes after the Government ordered Telecom in 2006 to open up its exchanges and allow rivals such as Orcon to install its own equipment in them.
While finally starting to get some access to dark fiber and unbundling would seem like a good thing it would please me alot more if it wasn't Orcon that seemed to get the inside running on all these things - simply because it seems poor form for the Government owned ISP to be the one profiting first from the Government mandated unbundling... Any one else feel a few shivers everytime an SOE seems to profit from a new regulation from the Government?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Lest we forget
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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
