Posts by insider outsider
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From my limited discussions, the Americans simply view Iran as 'the enemy', indeed that was how a lobbyist and former congressional staffer and a harvard international relations grad colleague both put it.
Me and a dutchman had a huge debate with them into the night. We kept oputting it to them, what had Iran done that got them the enemy status, and I never got it clear. but then they thought that Iraq would be a killing ground of jihadis -suck them in from all around and they would be wiped out forshadowing a great future for a democratic mid east. WOnder if they still think that two years on?
Has the US ever actually got over the Teheran embassy siege? I wonder if this significantly influences their view?
-
Russell
I meant it was a learning time in that we had never sold a telco off before. It's naive to think all assumptions would pan out exactly as envisaged. Paperless office anyone?
We are all brilliant at property investment, avoiding sharemarket crashes and regulation with the benefit of hindsight.
-
Thre used to be a law for road transport that restricted the distance anyhting could be trucked Over 100km or so it had to go by rail. Hence there were lots of depots in country towns for repackaging of goods or local distribution of rail freighted goods. For instance there were inland oil terminals at places like Ashburton.
In terms of SOE sales the kneejerk "selling off the family silver, we'll never do it" response of Labour is just bad governance. Why do we own a coal mining company given Labour;s policies? Those will surely devalue it long term so why mindlessly hold onto it while it loses value? Funny how the pollies got upset about Air NZ transporting soldiers but have a blind spot to ownership of sinful Solid Energy.
Why do we own a children's book publisher? Are our children going to be illiterate if we sell it? Will school libraries suddenly be starved of books?
Everyone says Telecom was a disaster. It's easy in hindsight to see the errors but it was a time of learning and the Govt still got $4bn for it in 1990. That was quite a lot of money in anybody's terms. I see Vodafone got an Indian mobile company recently for $11b that is adding over 1m customers a month.
I think too many focus on the emotional issues around their visceral dislike for telecom rather than was it, on the information at the time, a good deal.
-
As we are on about character assasination, this is a bit snide : "a former Prime Minister, however brief and unelected"
We don't have a presidential system. All PM's are 'unelected' by the public, even HC. The only people to elect PMs are party caucuses. Moore's tenure or method of gaining power makes him no less a PM than any other person to hold that office.
Also, HC might not have used SIS files but did make unprecedented use of an MFAT file note pn Brash's meeting with US senators.
Do I also need to mention haters and wreckers, cancerous, speaking of affairs....
-
Pilger’s always been like this. I’m not sure why there is a big surprise. He’s always had an agenda and always pushed that.
At journalism school we used to carry around copies of “Heroes” like Mao’s little red riding hood book, because we wanted to change the world and we saw him doing that through his writing. Fisk might have taken that spot. We’ve grown up a bit since then and seen the world is not as clearly defined as we thought. The things kids and mortgages do to you…
But I’m not sure if the article is as bad as you portray as an opinion piece. The theme here is continuity of US tactics not a thorough examination of Chavez’s record so the points you raise are not necessarily relevant. The point about South Africans you objected to seemed a very apt comparison, finding similarities in the way the holders of power and wealth lived. It wasn’t a dig at Chavez’s opponents in general.
-
Kyle
The plane didn;t go to Iraq so you could equally leave that word out as well and substitute it for Kuwait, or Dubai, or Bahrain, or Beirut. I think the inference has been drawn that NZ was saying the Aussies were going to be involved in something so terrible that we didn't want a part of it.
-
And the reason he dragged him in Russel? Likely because he felt New Zealand had made a very firm dig at the ADF's integrity and suitability as a customer of ANZ. I had the very same reaction last week and wondered how the Aussies would view it. Downer understandably said ‘well, if you are too good to take us there, we don’t want to go with you anywhere- sucks boo to you’.
HC and PG said their concern was driven by ANZ not conforming with govt policy on support for the war. Well we have policies on a whole range of things, yet that doesn’t seem to be a concern as regards ANZ and Fiji (who kicked out our High Commissioner) which seems a salient example given that Fiji and its govt are highly reliant on revenue from our tourists and HC has been very outspoken as to the legitimacy of their govt and our view of their actions. Hell, we have imposed sanctions on Fiji – what sanctions do we have on Iraq or Australia?
Any embarrassment Labour felt on this is largely self induced due to their selectivity and feral reaction.
-
I find that snippy email about feeling safer a bit odd when the guy is flying through LAX. Does anyone seriously think terrorists actually give a shit what Air NZ does? Most of the NZ security apparatus obviously didn't, which is why they didn't tell, so why invent risks?
And I'm not sure if hiding behind the curtains in fear of what terrorists might do is showing great international or moral leadership.
Downer quite rightly had a go at NZ for its attitude. BAsically HC;s and PG's posturing took it beyond a domestic issue and made it some sort of thought crime for a public company to actually do commercial work for the govt our closest neighbour and ally. (You might remember them, we regularly exercise and cooperate militarily with them and HC likes to play the old ANZAC card when it suits her.) And that reaction, in my view, could only be seen as casting aspersions on the integrity of Australia and its military.
IF Air NZ were supposed to follow govt foreign policy in their commercial decisions why are they flying to Fiji?
and now HC is acting like a kid who has had her toy taken - the one she planned to whack her sandpit neighbour with.
-
My wife also prefers joules.
Ah but David, I am a consumer, and I am interested in the case as it affects me not the business case for a potential producer or energy balance modeller. When you invent a water powered car, then the cost of water might be relevant. As a consumer I am more interested in the price I pay for fuel and how far it takes me.
My parallel reality is that fuel is priced by volume, my fuel tank capacity is based on volume not energy content, I measure fuel economy by comparing volume consumed by distance travelled, fuel taxes are by volume. Unless everything I have read is wrong, in my world if I put a ethanol blend in my car - all things being equal - I am going to go fewer kms in my vehicle than if I put in straight petrol in a ratio proportionate to the ethanol content.
And as the ethanol content is likely to make the fuel a higher price than pure petrol, I am going to get a double whammy. However I will now be able to sleep content in knowing that I was better off in terms of joules.
PS My "they" was undefined and was not aimed at Scion at all. They are welcome to do their business case numbers based on joules. I was more referring to the various cheerleaders who oversell the wonders of ethanol and biodiesel and conveniently ignore the known downsides.
-
Andrew
I'm not confused at all. When I buy my fuel by the joule and put it in an ethanol specific vehicle, then you might have a point. Unfortunately I buy it by the litre and that new car is a long way off for the vast majority, so the point stands.
How successful have NZ govt ministers been in picking the long term oil price in the past? I have a bad feeling in my wallet.