Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
they’ve done studies comparing BCom. students with other degrees and shown that one year of a commerce degree is enough to make people significantly more greedy and selfish. Apparently they learn that everyone else is selfish too so they should be selfish first
Given that first-year economics (BCom graduate here) is largely premised on perfect market theory, it's little surprise that a study of first-year BCom students will show a significant increase in greed. It's not until one progresses beyond first-year economics that one learns just how completely bollocks perfect market theory actually is in practice. Since there's no compulsion to learn anything more than first-year economics, the lunacy persists beyond the first year.
I found international economics (second-year paper) to be a pretty good leveler of the nonsense of perfect market theory, assisted by the lecturer being openly dubious of the reality of perfect markets. But I was disinclined to believe that markets are perfect in the first place, which probably helped.
-
Hard News: 2011: The Year Of What?, in reply to Russell Brown,
brought Auckland its warmest February and May on record
To be followed, three months later, by only the second confirmed instance of snow in suburban Auckland in the last 75 years and the lowest daily high on record.
-
Hard News: Is that it?, in reply to John Armstrong,
I can think of at least one ex-currency trader who would probably benefit from a spell up to his elbows in eel guts. Or working in a creche. Or on a benefit. Or something.
Working up to his elbows in eel guts, in a creche, to top up his benefit so that he can afford to pay the interest on the rates on his Parnell mansion?
-
OnPoint: Easy as 1, 2, 22.8 billion, in reply to Sean Maitland,
when people become unemployed, they get a new job
Yes, clearly. That's why we've had all these people who've lost their jobs but our dole queue is non-existent. Right?
No, wait, it's loaded with hundreds-of-thousands of "bludgers" (I'm fairly sure, by your tone, that that's how you view them) who just need to apply themselves to finding a new job. Them and the hundreds-of-thousands of others.News flash, Sean: Right now, there's a very serious shortage of jobs. You don't get hundreds of people queuing for jobs in a new supermarket when the economy is doing well.
-
Closing the $7.5b hole in Labour's numbers is easy. Terminate PV Joyce’s Roads of Dubious Significance.
Bang, that’s the thick end of $10b saved over the next decade, job done. -
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Rik,
2/3 of $140k is $92,400. You’ve just about agreed with my argument there – which is (and not many people seem to read this part), that a family with an income of $100k is not as well off as some would think
OK, so my very hasty maths was very off. They're nowhere near $90k. If they were actually on 2/3 of our income, they would be very much less hand-to-mouth than they are. Some of that is historic low incomes on both sides that have resulted in a lot of debt for things like car repairs, appliances, etc, that are still being paid down several years later.
So, no, still not agreeing with your argument, sorry. I just didn't do my maths very carefully before I posted.
-
Rik, given that we now know where Labour’s 39% threshold will be, let’s look at another example. My partner and I both work (well, until the end of today, but let’s not go there) in professional jobs. She’s on salary into the current top bracket, by a small margin, and by a rather smaller margin my salary plus interest/dividends puts me into the current top bracket. Our combined household income is still short of the single-income figure needed to put us into Labour’s proposed top bracket. We run one-and-a-half (I don’t drive mine much, but it’s still got fixed costs) cars, we rent a fairly nice house in Ellerslie and don’t need a flatmate, we can buy whatever food we want, we can eat out whenever we want, we can go wherever, do whatever, and not pay attention to the figures in the bank. She’s debt-free, I’ve got my student loan plus some interest-free borrowing for “toys” that I’d just have not bought otherwise. My net worth is very definitely positive, even accounting for the debt.
Are we rich? By my reckoning, and I’d say the reckoning of the majority of contributors to this thread, we are. We’re not filthy rich, by any stretch, but we have surplus cash every pay period and we don’t have to keep an eye on the bills. And we still fall short of Labour’s proposed top bracket. We could comfortably raise two or three children on our combined income. I have friends who raise two kids with expensive dietary issues on a gross income about 2/3 of ours, and I know they struggle but it wouldn’t take much more money for them to be doing OK. $100k gross would make their lives considerably easier. And still they’d be well short of Labour’s proposed top threshold.As others have said, on planet PAS, if you struggle on $100k you’ve either got some involuntary issues that don’t get adequate state support or you’re making bad choices. The current vogue is to berate beneficiaries who struggle to live on considerably less than the median income, then say “Oh, poor dears, we can’t possibly increase their income tax” for people who make very bad choices and struggle with the same number of kids on more than twice the median income.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Sacha,
opposing that is not likely to help Arie’s situation
Maybe not, but we're talking about broad principles of NZ's culture, not specific incidents. As a whole, I think (hope) most NZers abhor the thought that cops dish out the bash to whomsoever they feel deserves it. If the Minister of Police doesn't support the basic principle that "innocent until proven guilty" applies from the moment of the first police intervention, then we need a new Minister.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to izogi,
Would you think the same if it were shown she’d asked reasonable questions and made reasonable steps to find out, and been lied to or important info had been withheld?
In that case, I would expect her to seek resignations from such Assistant/Deputy Commissioners as were involved in the lying. Broad has already gone, Marshall is too new in the job to carry any of the can for it, and such misleading of the Minister must follow a path of subordinates below the Commissioner.
Given that all the highest levels are political appointments, getting rid of the office-holders for lying to the Minister would be both right and straight-forward.As you say, that would be entirely speculative. I consider it even more speculative that Collins asked anything of the sort. Much easier to say, in all truthfulness, that she had no information on the subject.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
This is a serious question and I’m truly not trolling for a fight, Steve, but what do you expect Collins to do? Engage in blatant, direct and (I believe) illegal ministerial interference in Police operational matters by picking up the phone and ordering Erasmus to drop the case?
She could direct Broad to pass an operational instruction that where the Judiciary make a recommendation of diversion multiple times in the same case, diversion will be offered. That would be legitimate use of her limited authority to direct the Police to do anything.
Her resignation would be appropriate if it turns out that the Police have been engaged in what is effectively a vendetta against Arie, ignoring judicially-provided opportunities to walk away without losing “face”, and especially if it turns out that there was in operation an unofficial policy of dealing out some rough justice on the streets of Christchurch. Those would be significant failings within her portfolio, and resignation is the time-honoured way of a Minister taking responsibility for what happens within their portfolio.
ETA: Not that I expect her to do any such thing. She clearly believes that "looters" are fair game for anything that happens to them, as witnessed by her ongoing unwillingness to own the remark about "a cell mate".