Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"not a subjunctive pluterperfect in sight"
We would have had trouble coming up with ways to use them anyway.
-
Kyle: that's the whole "can Parliament bind itself" question. And the conventional answer is no, it can't. All Acts are equal.
-
Apropos the aging: we don't see ourselves or those close to us as we really are.
When I look at my daughter, superimposed on her image are all the images I recall from when she was a baby on up, with the most recent ones having more weight, so while I don't see an infant, she always seems younger to me than she really is.
When I look in the mirror, the memories of all my previous self-inspection overlay the mirror image and make it look younger than it really is.
This is why we see photos, or children after a few weeks' absence, and think "Jeez do I look __that__old" or "She's really grown up while she's been away."
-
Seriously, what are the odds that ACT stays in Parliament?
I've been thinking for some time that ACT and NZF are likely toast, in which case a left coalition is a distinct possibility still.
That's when there will be real anti-MMP tantrums from the Nats.
-
I/S: fair enough. HSS doesn't tell you about indirect ownership though...
-
OK, but getting back to my original complaint: there is a difference between a) the majority of shares being owned by rich people (probably true), and b) the majority of share owners being rich people (which I doubt). If your policy aim is to put the boot into the rich, the scale of collateral damage is vastly different depending on whether b is true or not. Most of the evidence proffered in this thread addresses a, not b.
-
Rich: superannuation, life insurance and managed funds are all likely to have a substantial share component, just through intermediaries, that's all. That's also 2001 data. After the bull market we've just had in property and shares, things are likely to be quite different.
-
overwhelmingly
Out of interest, how do you know?
On most of the company reports I have seen recently, small holdings account for the majority of the shares. Of the remainder most large holders are investment firms that are front ends for super schemes, nominee companies representing many investors, or insurance companies investing their float, etc. Is the stock market largely owned by rich people? I don't know how you could tell.
-
Why is it that when our businesses reach a certain size they get sold off?
My pet harangue-people-when-drunk theory is that New Zealanders have a very high personal discount rate. This manifests in she'll be right, bodged repairs, deferred maintenance, houses that fall apart, all sorts of short term thinking. When the average punter in NZ is offered a price by a foreign buyer, they take it, because they cannot imagine waiting 5 years for a better return. We are Esau.
-
I did like his travelogue about whisky in Scotland, though.
Really? I thought it was in dire need of a good hard edit, a real potboiler, oh well I've given thousands of quid to write a book, better crank one out, the fans will buy it anyway.