Pretty sure I had to sign something to get a student loan. Marginally sure that something said that it was a loan, and that I had to pay it back.
Pretty sure that happened to me too. I signed something that had some fairly clear terms regarding when and how to pay back, interest rates that were pegged, an exclusion regarding having to pay back when overseas, etc. I read it all because the loan was going to be with me for a long time. Then a few years later, the government changed the terms of the deal I had signed, jacking up the interest rates. At that point I felt a little like Lando Calrissian:
Me: But we had a deal!
Government: I am altering the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further....
Me: This deal is getting worse all the time.
<Into PA. Students of NZ, the Market Empire has taken control of your loans. I suggest you leave immediately><thousands of people flee>
I'm glad to see that the questions around the definition of "consensus" got raised. It seems to mean anything from bare majoritarianism to unanimity, depending what outcome the user desires. I don't much like it as a word, would probably only use it in the case of a small number of people, and usually meaning unanimity in that case. It's a quick question, like asking for a show of hands, to ascertain a ball park. "Do we have a consensus?" is something I'd ask if I just wanted to know if there was anyone who disagreed. If it's unanimous, then we certainly have a consensus. If not, it's not so clear, so the question gets more specific, typically "Do we have a majority". Having thus bisected the possibilities, usually that would involve a count if it wasn't glaringly obvious, so no further questions are needed about the level of support.
Bars will kick out people who are too intoxicated. But the casino will only kick you out when you are actually cleaned out. Or if you win too much.
Yes, good analogy. If you get caught drinking and driving you lose your right to drive for a time. No such thing happens with disastrous life-wrecking gambling.
The Herald editorial seems to get it
The deal includes, first, a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling. To be of use, that will have to be acted on effectively. Secondly, under a voluntary pre-commitment system, pokie players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend.
Voluntary action, however, runs counter to the very essence of an addiction. Thirdly, SkyCity will double the number of "host responsibility" specialists. Finally, player identification will be required when buying tickets with a value of more than $500 in non-restricted areas.
In sum, this not a compelling harm minimisation package. It might aid the identification of problem gamblers, but it places a heavy reliance on SkyCity staff responding appropriately. That is not an altogether reassuring scenario.
Quite. Considering the gambler I referred to above isn't banned from SkyCity, despite ruining their life and damaging many others there. It's quite incredible, really. You don't need special predictive modelling tools to spot people who have already revealed themselves as having a gambling problem in the worst possibly way.
It's such bullshit lip-service. Everyone can see that the casino doesn't want to minimize problem gambling - that's totally contra to their interests, a huge slice of the profits come from problem gamblers.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, Tom.
Nah, he's being partisan himself, in an attempt to redress a perceived imbalance. But the perception is pretty skewed, it's not like Graeme is some partisan hack who is always going on about the naughty wicked Labour party. He blogs on aspects of highly specific and technical interest. I don't see a big story here, really. It is, as Tom says, a fairly minor thing. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be writing it. He's allowed to write about whatever interests him, and today, this is that subject. Keeping politicians honest is a perfectly noble journalistic cause, and if the target is Labour, it is worth noting that they're hardly some poor starving beneficiary family who don't deserve attention. From time to time, they run the entire country. They're worth keeping honest, for everyone's good.
I hate the bloody things – and I’ve had one friend become addicted to them. It’s a disturbing thing to witness.
Addiction of any kind is worrisome, but the outcome of a gambling addiction is particularly severe. Because the illusion is that you can actually win back money lost, it encourages doubling down, to the point that it encourages seriously criminal behaviour, as the gambler considers it a victimless crime if the money is won back. This took a huge toll on my family a few years ago. People who are not really "bad" people at all can end up doing very bad things. There's not much that's good about a wholesale expansion of that kind of industry in our city.
I do. If a commercial enterprise is genuinely viable, then it should be able to happen at a profit within our existing legal framework. If it requires taxpayer funding and legal facilitation it isn't viable.
Not sure about that. It could be viable to be handed a business, even if it's not viable to build one. I'm not against the government helping for major infrastructure facilities to be built.
What's wrong is that the cost is going to be larger numbers of lives ruined by gambling. The convention center will be built on the destruction of families.
A number of my friends who frequently travel through Asia will leave things like getting their teeth done, or their eyes lasered, or a suit tailored, until they pass through Thailand.
If we had a total autarchy, except that we exported a small amount of cheese, would the cheese sector be "most" of that economy?
Or more poignantly, if it exported nothing, does that mean it has no economy at all?
On the flipside, if for some reason every business broke even, would it make sense to say that there was no production whatsoever, no matter how much actual stuff they made? GDP as a measure of production has this issue.