Posts by Malcolm
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yamis: Sounds cute. NZPost Courier please.
Jeremy: Ummm. Informed guess. Assuming we're not heading for a massive international crash (which I don't think we are). Partly it's a calculation about when tax cuts will be implemented and the immigration lever turned back on. That's a political timing thing. Partly it's a calculation about when lenders stop getting spooked. They are plenty spooked at the monent, but those Chinese, those Belgian Dentists, those Aussie Super funds, that Kiwisaver, that Cullen Fund - they've got to get the money out somewhere, somehow. It'll start coming back, credit will improve, and happy days will be here again. :-) As others observed, it's not like the fundamentals are bad.
-
What do you all think? Are people just spooked, or are there really hard times ahead?
Well, seeing as you asked ...
I think there is a serious problem with, not just confidence, but investment and credit. That'll rattle around the system for a while (watch for the flow on effect to commercial property, apartment development and business startups), but is fundamentally short term. The underlying factors are good, so things should come right, but maybe not for 18 months.
The housing thing is really interesting. As the overcrowding issue shows, it is fundamentally a supply side problem. Regulation restricts supply and increases costs. The RMA, OSH, Building Act local government red tape, all have a direct flow on effect to new house prices, and thus indirectly to old house prices. It ain't going to change.
Also, with housing, it is slumping because (1) there is a loss of global confidence and (2) the government has turned off the immigration tap. That last one is really interesting! I reckon the government now uses immigration like the OCR - as a macroeconomic lever, but without the consideration and control that goes into the reserve bank. That's pretty scary.
So I think we'll get a return of global confidence, tax cuts, the immigration tap turned back on - all in 2009, and we'll be back into a boom; probably an over-correction due to the kneejerk nature of macroeconomic immigration decisions.
(But all IMHO - your mileage may vary, seek independent investment advice, and sell me your children by return post)
-
Very nice post Russell. I would be a little more sceptical about claims of Tibetan torture - the victims, likely criminals, are hardly going to say they deserved it (I know, nobody deserves it, but they are hardly likely to admit to being fairly caught and thus subject to the admittedely barbarous criminal code of the time).
But more importantly, let me speak up for China. Yes, they still do some bad things, but it's nothing compared to Stalin, Mao, Hitler or the US Civil war. These are not intended to be trite comparisons. Remember Forsyth's "The Devil's Alternative"? When you are in charge of that much stuff (ie. the US govt.), you have to make nasty decisions such as who should die. Even our own PM is faced with decisions like whether to invade Ruatoki. Then imagine being China, with 1.3 billion, surrounded by other countries. What horrible alternatives would you have to choose between?
It is amazing China manages to even govern itself. Yes, nasty stuff happens, like cultural genocide in Tibet, organ trade from executed prisoners and so on. But it could be so much worse. In a sense, I think the Chinese government, although imperfect, is close to the best possible outcome. They are even moving slowly towards democracy by trialling elections at local government level.
I'm really concerned about some things in China, but I tell you what, I wouldn't want to walk a mile in Hu Jintao's moccasins.
-
I/S - If the government is so scrupulous on the EFB, why didn't the select committee travel to Auckland to take submissions there as well?
-
Yes. I think if you are genuine about consultation, you have to commit to it when it's hard. Not just when it's politically convenient.
-
Kyle, you are quite right - the problems in this bill are not even remotely like the issues in Burma or Fiji. I do think they are the step in the wrong direction though. Some commentators have raised the issue of secret ballots, and I think this is a fair point. If we think requiring names and addresses from individuals making public political statements is okay, why not abolish the secret ballot? The answer in both cases is that people may be intimidated from participating freely in the political process.
I think the name and address thing is just a mistake. But the bill seems to have many mistakes. We now have the spectre of the 2008 election being one of the <i>least inclusive ever</i>, due to the risk of prosecution and litigation from <i>getting it wrong</i>. If people don't know where the boundaries lie, they are less likely to participate.
Bit of a shame really.
-
I/S: I imagine the argument would be that ad hoc amendments are not going to fix a fundamentally flawed bill. Rather, participating in the process would just add legitimacy to what has been highly partisan process. So I can understand why National don't want to lend their name to the outcome.
I agree many of the bill's intentions are laudable, but bear in mind the Electoral Commission, Human Rights Commission and Law Society are all still expressing grave concerns.
Under those circumstances, characterising opponents of the bill as excitable partisans seems itself to be a rather partisan comment. Bear in mind, Labour has made an art form out of ignoring objections and difficulties, so I don't see how polite comment will any impact on the Bill whatsoever.
-
I think that is an overly rosy picture of the bill.
In fact, changes to the bill have only been made under heavy political pressure. To then claim those bringing the political pressure are excitable seems a little circular. Are they excitable because they are successful? What if they failed? Would then then have been just wrong? Or still excitable? And what other changes are sneaking through in the one week we have to examine this bill?
I also take issue with the argument that the very long regulated period is okay because you are unlikely to have political advertising early in the year. If this is true, why have the restriction at all? It seems a bit odd to justify it by effectively saying it isn't needed.
Meanwhile, RadioNZ is saying
The Electoral Commission says it is deeply concerned that some aspects of the revised Electoral Finance Bill are not clear, and could result in a lot of litigation.
So this seems like, at best, a botch up job like the Terrorism Suppression Bill. I'd rather not trust the enforcement agencies to make sense of it. After all, they didn't do a very good job with sedition...
-
So somebody seems to have a problem. Some Tuhoe people are arrested, in part, because of bugged conversations about killing John Key. Then John Key gets to visit deep in Tuhoe country, outside of cellphone range, at remote Marae, greeted by Tame Iti, without a police escort, and with the written approval of the diplomatic protection squad. (Factual corrections welcome).
This looks very bad for the Police Commissioner. Either he sanctioned unjustified raids. Or he failed to protect one of the country's leading politicians.
So which is it? Or is there a third option I've missed?
-
So we had this thing we called the magic sleep book. We loved it, because it explained baby routines, how parents automatically stuff them up, how we reward undesirable behaviour and reinforce it, how to encourage good sleeping routines. It was brilliant.
But the best thing about it, was that when we lent it to other people, their babies slept through the night. Immediately. Before they even read a page.