Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Journalists, statistics, alarmist headlines... (screams and falls frothing to the floor). Here's a thought: when the APN "outsource" their subbing to contractors in Mumbai, we might just get some subs who are numerate (phds in stats?).
And maybe not as desperate to sell the paper. Who knows?
"Checkpoints arrest simply almost as many as they did previously!"
"Arey! New Zealand's Drunkest Driver: asleep at the wheel!" -
I know a car nut who does like Top Gear... but it's successful 'cos people like my wife and I who are pretty indifferent to cars and could barely tell a lamborghini from a lada find it amusing. It's entertaining 'cos they do stupid things with great gusto, and because Clarkson can pen a memorable line. (Writing off a huge swathe of vehicular transport in one line: "I'd rather have a vasectomy than drive a diesel") As a non-enthusiast, American chopper and the other one- where despite the joshing, they take it VERY seriously- make me yawn.
Underlying that, you're pushing a critic/artist line that's just not viable. Critics in a subject (disclaimer: I've been a movie reviewer) usually are picked/choose to do it because it's something they know and care about. Few have no involvement with the form. Many are actively involved, or have been, or- and this isn't always bad either- want to be.
If yr making (say) a programme about an artist, and you just talk to critics- it could be valid and valuable, but there's a big, central element you're not covering. If you just talk to the artist, however... you're not necessarily getting the whole story either.
The truth is that the artist is the first reader/consumer/critic of their own work. Artists work in context, and part of that context is being a critic/consumer of art themselves. Writers are also readers- and readers of their own work. On the other foot, really good criticism is often genuinely creative. But their "job" is to distill/evaluate/comment on what's in it for the reader/consumer - not what's in it for the artist.
I get what you're saying, but it just ain't black and white... -
sagenz talks of cullen's "ignorant economics", and sez stuff like:
Cullen has no idea how to grow personal wealth, company wealth or the wealth of a country. It is growth that is the issue. And individuals can only earn more in aggregate through improvements in productivity.
I quoted Brash to indicate that while kiwisaver is no guarantor of increased productivity, it ain't like that's off Cullen's radar, and it ain't some wierd leftie cult to suggest kiwisaver might have a positive impact on productivity.
-
Here's Dr Brash again:
On balance, I would probably be a supporter of some kind of mandatory savings scheme as one contribution to improving our growth performance.
Hmmmm.
-
The nineties were blimmin BOOM years for much of the world- look at oz and the states; cheap energy, rapid growth. We stagnated. (In 1990 our per capita was only 5% below Aust, by 1999 it was 40% below- where do these figures come from? a speech by Don Brash.)
National made some hard choices... and made them hardest for those who could least afford it (and were unlikely to vote for them.) They also made a mess of most of the industries they deregulated, tertiary education, public health and- I could go on.
But worst in terms of economic mis-management, they let the Don get his fingers round the wind-pipe of the economy, and any sign of life, they encouraged him to squeeze. It was painful to watch.
One of the first things Cullen did was ditch Don and change the RBA target from 0-2% inflation (Don always thought he'd get an "A+" only if he could get it down to 0) to 1-3%. It was like the brakes came off. Not always pretty, not always completely under control. But we've caught up bit of the ground lost....
Ignorant economics?
Yes, selling off NZ has been disasterous. But hardly a trend Cullen started. With kiwisaver, there's a chance NZers will start buying a bit back. You obviously have a 'better' plan... but this will work. -
For me- no thanks.
A/ plenty of kids already
b/ we both enjoyed my partner's pregnancies in a range of ways I can't quite see us enjoying if I was pregnant.
Damian? -
So those guys were fighting over a chance to get pregnant- well, that explains it....
-
Yeah, very funny "fight"!
I know "the voice" from Planet Earth, and he's NEVER wrong. But I thought seahorses were hermaphrodites? In which case, aren't they all sort've gay? And what exactly would they be fighting over? -
Keith I presume these are the stats sagenz is refering to- both tables (capital and labour) show higher growth in the 'bad years' for the economy as a whole, of 1993-2000. Lots of reasons for this, but a tight economy and high interest rates would have encouraged efficient use of capital and labour. Conversely, the "easy" growth, and "easy" credit have been a factor in the slide in productivity growth- which isn't good, but is still far from the whole picture.
Re:Does anyone really think, intentionally or not, there's going to be the political expectation that if enough KiwiSaver accounts go boink that the Government - of whatever partisan tint - is going to bail them out?
Nope, we don't get a bail-out if the financial sector turns to custard. Any govt in such times will have other pressing problems...
Kiwisaver is the govt pushing, supporting, promoting and contributing to private super savings schemes. They're regulated and tied in til we hit 65, but they're ours. We pass them on to our kids or spend them in retirement or- whatever. We own the funds, we also own the risk.
But it's NOT like Bush's attempt to privatise Social Security. The "Cullen Fund" - which is doing pretty well- is about Govt saving/investing now to pay for National Super (in a way, the govt's own "kiwisaver" fund.)
Nat Super is the "social security" backstop/baseline that govt does gaurantee. And one of the "other pressing problems" a govt will have in the case of financial sector melt-down, is paying national super- the "cullen fund" is vulnerable to the same sort of risks as our kiwisaver funds- albeit spread even wider. -
The truth of a proposition depends on the weight of evidence for or against it.
Ouch. The 'philosophy' of 'science' must have changed almightily in the last 20 years. Or the 'snigger quotes' indicate we're talking about 'truth' not truth. Or I've repressed my memories of crucial elements in Popper, Newton-Smith, et al. :-)