Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Good point! I'd forgotten them (although I don't see how, since they seem to have been on telly forever). Can you point to a good YouTube sketch of theirs? They always seemed to be singing whenever I tuned in.
Also realize I forgot to mention Hale and Pace.
-
Very nice blog, Mr Slack! I've had lots of chortles all through your last few posts (since your re-emergence from seclusion).
Rich of Observationz wrote:
I think that the PM should sack Peters, announcing publicly that his lack of support for the principles of the labour-led government, coupled with his parties racism, makes him unfit to be a Minister.
She can't do that because he'd bring down the government?
Well, there's a way out of that...
Gotta say, the way you explain it -- sounds pretty good to me. I'm definitely not a fan of Peters and his lousy politics of inciting hatred and resentment.
Go for it, Helen, I say.
-
Russell Brown wrote:
You've got a blog, you nong. Millions of people get their thoughts from you. People's teenage daughters think you're quite cool.
Oh, so now the teenage girls think I'm cool. Where the hell were they 20 years ago when I would have appreciated it?
True fact: whenever I write about science or energy, I instantly cut my audience by 90 per cent (this is mathematically provable: compare my readership for 4594 and 4770). At the risk of sounding like a nong (what a lovely onomatopoeic word that is), no-one likes writing into a vacuum.
But you're right, and this very subject will be discussed in the next episode of PA science (just waiting for the screaming to stop so that I can record).
InternationalObserver wrote:
Please do ... I have to refix my million dollar (tax deductible) mortgage next month and I'm wondering whether to do that or sell off my share portfolio
I've got a hell of a busy day, but very quickly (and this shouldn't be taken as financial advice)...
Taking a maximum-macro view is very useful in energy engineering/thermodynamics. You can often gain a lot of insight by stepping right back and saying: "let's ignore the detail and look at this system as a black box -- what should we expect from the inputs/outputs according to the laws of thermodynamics"... to certain extent, I suspect the same can be often be done for economics
1. Housing market -- you could draw a simple control system diagram for this type of speculation-based market. And what you'd end up with would be some sort of positive feedback system. This isn't advanced control engineering -- it's what you learn on the first day of Control Systems 101: the most obvious practical example of a positive feedback system is a speculation-based market.
I'm sure economists know this, but you have to wonder sometimes, as follows...
A few months back the chief economist for the BNZ was predicting that the housing market would level off into a sustained stable period. This is simply impossible for a positive feedback system. Such systems are inherently unstable: they're either increasing or decreasing, but they never become stable for a sustained period. As soon as we see a significant oversupply of houses for sale then we know that the market will start going down down down. Taking a maximum-macro view this should be blindingly obvious to economists (note the BNZ is now saying that the NZ housing market is 30 per cent overvalued).
2. International interest rates -- there is very good reason to think that economists grossly underestimate the effects of energy on the economy (they treat it more or less like any other commodity). As my example of US-produced meat demonstrated (with 28/29ths of the food energy actually originating from fossil fuels) there are wheels within wheels when it comes to energy. In fact, Ayres work at CMER suggest that the vast majority of economic growth is ultimately due to improvements in the efficiency with which energy is harnessed.
From this one would expect that economic growth will decrease when energy prices increase. Oil is a very significant part of the energy mix, and as the world relies increasingly on cheap oil from politically unstable regions then there is reason to think that oil prices will become more volatile and ultimately more expensive in the long term (as indeed they are at the moment). This should therefore result in a reduction in economic growth in most economies.
I would then speculate that the reaction of governments to this would be:
(a) to borrow in order to tide themselves over (what they hope will be) a brief economic downturn, thus competing against private borrowers and raising interest rates,
(b) enacting some sort of scheme that ultimately boils down to "print more money", which raises inflation and hence interest rates (you can already see the US Fed favouring this approach).NOTE: Bear in mind with all of this that I'm a (former) energy engineer, not an economist, Jim.
-
Jackie Clark wrote:
I'm just here to ask Mr F McDonald if he'd please come back to the Listener...
Hear hear, Jackie.
Your comment also raises the question: could John Key be viewed as the Pamela Stirling of New Zealand politics?
-
Sorry to come in slightly late to this conversation. Just to mention that from an ex-energy engineer's perspective, I/S is exactly right in his comments with respect to NZ (and the rest of the world) in terms of energy.
Russell Brown wrote:
In part, the crop switch to biofuels is to blame. The cost of petroleum for transport adds some more.
This rather underestimates the role of petroleum products in setting food prices, dude.
For animal protein in the USA, it requires about 28 joules of fossil fuel energy for each joule of food energy produced. For grain it's about 3 joules of fossil fuel energy for each joule of food energy produced. The fossil fuels are in the form of fertilizer, heating, transport, processing, etc. (These approx. numbers have been known for some time -- see this old press release on the subject from Cornell.)
In other words, when you think you're eating food in the USA (or, to a lesser extent, in western Europe), you're actually mainly eating fossil fuels.
All of which means that food prices are incredibly determined by fossil fuel prices (and in particular petroleum prices). So when oil prices go up, then food prices must follow.
New Zealand's agriculture is far more energy efficient than that of the USA, but nevertheless NZ producers are now able to obtain higher international prices because rising fossil fuel costs means that their competitors (in North America and Europe) have to charge more for their food products.
All of this stuff is blindingly obvious to energy engineers, but no one ever listens to us...
P.S. And, by the way, the economic woes in the US are also easily predicted from energy prices, and will be no surprise to anyone who has read the work of Prof Robert Ayres at CMER.P.P.S. Oh, and I can also tell you why house prices will fall and mortgage rates will go up over the next 5-10 years.
-
Hi Lynley/Lyndon,
I had no idea that you'd made the 'big step'. It takes a lot of courage, I imagine -- well done! Like Jackie, I also thought that your comment was very witty, but alas time does not permit me to acknowledge every comment on these threads. Rest assured, however, that this was just a question of time management, and not a reaction to your gender reassignment. Best of luck with your new life...
Kind regards,
David. -
Angus Robertson wrote:
David,
To clarify: suggestion that anti-immigrant sentiment being tapped by Mr Brown is generated by an innate racism of a substantial number of New Zealanders is one of them "massive and unsubstantiated generalizations about groups of people" that should not be made.
Now I require clarification, Angus. I assume you're suggesting that I have made such claims. Just to remind you of my statements on the matter:
Here's an alternative hypothesis: what if -- plain and simple -- Mr Brown simply has an irrational dislike for people whose physical appearance is different from his.
And, furthermore, perhaps he suspects that there are a small minority of other sad people like him. And, not to take things too far, maybe he hopes that these misguided people will vote for him...
and:
It's even been suggested to me that we should accept the fact that a significant proportion of New Zealanders are xenophobic, and devise a pragmatic immigration policy that will frighten the xenophobes as little as possible. I don't personally agree with that, but it's a valid point to raise for discussion.
I don't have any statistical data on racism among New Zealand First supporters (I imagine that it would be very difficult to measure, in any case, and it all depends on your definition of 'substantial' and 'racist'), but I also don't believe I've ever made any particular claims on the subject.
I will say, however, that I have personally encountered a depressing amount of anti-Asian-immigrant prejudice in New Zealand. Not, as I believe you suggest, a general anti-immigrant prejudice; but, as in the case of Mr Brown, a specifically anti-Asian one.
I wish I hadn't encountered these unpleasant attitudes -- but I have.
-
Angus,
To clarify: I certainly didn't intend to imply that you were making anything up -- apologies if it came across that way.
Rather I was emphasizing that having a debate about immigration wasn't the basis of my objection to Peter Brown -- it was his devious claims and manipulation of the Stats NZ figures.
-
Creon Upton wrote:
So I say that Asia comprises some fifty countries and is not comprised of them, although I'm sure David's OED states that his wordy and confused rendering is acceptable.
I believe we may have had this conversation before, Creon. Yes, the OED does give this usage as acceptable, but you are dead right -- it is much more elegant to say 'comprised' or, I suppose, 'composed of'. I was writing at two o'clock in the morning after a long hard day, dude.
I've emended the original text.
Just as well I only complained about the spelling and punctuation in those election pamphlets, I guess.
-
By the way, to address a comment from another thread...
RE: Russell Brown shaving off his beard so as to be more presentable on the telly.
Russell, have you thought of going to a tidy moustache like the other Mr [Peter] Brown? I understand the ladies go wild for a nice pencil 'tachie.