Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think your comment proves mine. Kiwis didn't start to travel until very recently. We float in the middle of nowhere with no point of comparison upon which to grow. We are a reflection of oursevles.
I think that you're partly right, but that it's slightly more complicated than that.
Firstly, I agree that only a few of any generation before the 1960s travelled overseas in large numbers. But those who did travel were more influential than the rest, due in part to their social and cultural position within the societies they lived in.They came back, and their comparisons of New Zealand to the world were listened to and taken as reference points. Since then, a good number of New Zealand born have travelled and lived overseas before returning.
Of the rest of the population, at any point in the last two centuries a good proportion of the population has been foreign born. For most of that time, the majority of the foreign born population has been from the British Isles. As a result, the inevitable refraction has been to old country, and the values of that time and place have transferred across with the immigrants. There are still a good number of people whose benchmark is an anachronistic Britain.
I think that this has been a problem in the past, too singular a comparison. It is a fading (but still present) one now as people do base their understandings of the world on what they know, and measure NZ against the countries they're most familiar with, but with a much more diverse set than in the past. Those doing the travelling are now more diverse, and aren't all going to London either (if only to spend time with Europeans on the beaches of Thailand).
I don't think that it's right to say that we're a reflection of ourselves floating in nowhere, because we've always been more connected than that. Many of us are indeed self-referential - one only need see how New Zealanders are influenced much more by artists from previous decades than from overseas. I think that's a good thing.
We're now more free to create a destiny unencumbered by the expectations of a historical country that more than likely never existed. But as a country of immigration, we'll always have a fistful of memories. I don't think that's a bad thing either.
-
This isn't a complaint, rather an observation; when I login I have to put two spaces between my username (george darroch). I'm not sure how that happened, but now I just think of it as a quirk.
This is your penance for not following suggestions:
We prefer that you use your full name as your username, thanks.
I think that this was clearer for those who were around when PAS was launched - Russell explained this quite well, and the reasoning behind it (which was to encourage rigorous debate, IIRC) - and also to those who've lurked for a while before registering.
I like that the quotes are seperated from the text. It reminds me a little of the style in academic english, which is somewhat similar (at least in my discipline). If something is important enough to blockquote, giving it the dignity of seperation seems right. If it isn't, a simple "" and attribution to the author will suffice.
-
Craig, I agree. There's lots of talk about how Goff should play the game, and attack - but doing so is not without its risks. Negativity can work for an opposition, but it can also make you look shallow.
I'd prefer he set out a vision for an alternative Government.
-
And only the retirement of at-least-4th-generation NZers whose ancestors were drawn to these shores by a genuine sense of destiny.
I like being able to claim 6th generation illegal immigrant status in NZ. The founding ancestor was a shipjumper.
-
It's one of the new rules and it's been around since at least 1744. You've got to love cricket.
Cricket is more of an elaborate ceremony than a sport, particularly in test form. Although most sports are fairly ceremonial, now that I think about it.
-
I was surprised to read the other day the origins of the hit the ball twice rule in cricket. There should be no nostalgia in cricket about a gentler game.
-
What would really improve productivity?
Perhaps a Productivity Commission, which is to workplace productivity as EECA is to energy efficiency. I'm sure a lot of people would like their businesses to be more efficient, they just don't have the knowledge or expertise to improve their practices. A locus of that knowledge could be extremely helpful.
-
It's preventing type 2 diabetes through nutritional and lifestyle education, and helping little old ladies understand how to minimise the risks associated with their osteoporosis so that they don't end up occupying orthopaedic beds for weeks when they break their arm stopping themselves from falling over.
These are very sensible things. Unfortunately, helping people understand their risk factors for medical conditions is the dark hand of the nanny state, and is not an idea we can implement.
While I'm on health/productivity, I want a machine at my brother's work to replace the person currently destroying their back lifting 40kg boxes. Not only is the work inefficient, but in the long run it's costly to everyone.
-
Sounds a bit Mary Whitehouse
I do worry about that. There are various forms of peversion and filth I'd rather not see, and others I wouldn't mind more of.
I think the key thing here is choice. Do we have a reasonable expectation that we should be able to consume news without hearing every gory detail? And do we have the ability to do so? I'd argue that yes to the former, no to the latter.
If they'd package the murder-porn into a nice five minute package at the end, we might have more choice in the matter.
I don't mind seeing or hearing about violence. I love Old Boy for example, and the extreme acts in that don't diminish my enjoyment. But I like to be psychologically ready for it, otherwise I find I'm quite affected. There's no such chance when watching the news, or when someone is raped and murdered in the first 30 seconds of a CSI episode.
-
Says Mr Key:
"there's no point coming up with policies unless they're implementable".
And that, I think, is the crux of the matter, as Russell has identified. There are plenty of things that are implementable, in the technical sense. But whether they're implementable for people sitting round the Cabinet table is another matter.
I was also going to echo Oram's point about utilisation of labour and capital, made here again by another commenter. When wages are low, the choice between making widgets with a $25k/pa worker (with associated costs) and a $500k machine over the next ten years isn't a hard one. When the minimum wage is $30k, so you have to pay $35, the balance tips further the other way.
Of course, the economist heading an enquiry might say that increased labour costs make products more expensive and thus less competitive. But labour costs typically make up only a part of the total cost of an item, and increased productivity offsets against costs.