Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Public Address 2012 Word…, in reply to Tamara,
yeah I'll go for blog as WOTD
-
Hard News: The Public Address 2012 Word…, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
Yeah kinda what I was getting at but said more eloquently
-
I feel like this year so many events have had their own hashtag to define them that I'll nominate
Hashtag
as word of the year.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Islander,
I have known West Coast dairy farmers cynically pollute local streams (whitebait havens) with shit&nitrates, and pay fines for the pollution
I had the pleasure of talking to Dr Joy about his interactions with farmers directly. If I remember him correctly he said that some older farmers were like this but most weren't. And most importantly the young farmers being taught at Massey had a completely different attitude. Even more telling when he got to talk to small groups personally they tended to "get it" and make changes but when he talked to "the industry" he got nowhere.
It wouldn't take much input from govt to get changes. But until the public put pressure on the govt nothing will happen. We really do have make ourselves heard if we want the govt to prioritise the environment.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to BenWilson,
but they’re already winners. They don’t need funding.
Often winners don't have funding nor can they get it. They win by dint of persistence and excellence in spite of lack of funding. You get more bang for your buck by funding those people who are excellent regardless of whther they fit your strategic goals.
That was Callaghan's point.
He also pointed out that throwing lots of money in the general direction of agricultural science just led to a lot of average to bad vaguely agricultural science being done while really top class engineering couldn't get funding.
-
But the editorial still claims that Dr Joy's comments about the environment are inappropriate, suggesting either he is wrong (he isn’t) or he’s not qualified to talk about the environment in general (he is) or that we shouldn’t talk about that sort of thing because it might make us look bad (really?).
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I don’t know anywhere that a conscious, government directed industrial policy has succeeded long term.
There are lots of examples of successful government funding schemes, even in little old NZ. The problem is they all have one thing in commong, they fund quality first and tend to ignore any kind of strategic funding. This is a problem because it essentially says the politicians and all the strategic think tanks are not only useless they are worse than useless because they take money from successful non-targetted funding and put it into less succesful targetted funding.
Have a look at Isreal for S&T funding or the NSF versus USDA. It is indeed possible to have successful govt funding and stimulation of industrial success but you have to be able to step away from the controls once you've put up the money.
That might be your point, that govts that try to direct where you get success generally fail.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Sacha,
In fact we can’t pick winners.
Other nations seem to manage. It’s part of stewardship/governance; of being grown ups rather than distractable and indulgent teens.
Kier is right. And this is also exactly what Sir Paul Callaghan said. You can't pick winners, but you can fund those who are winning. Essentially don't pour money into a sector because your pet theory says it will be of value (e.g. the new innovation centre), instead look around at those people who are succeeding and fund them.
Fund winners, don't pick them.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
You are preaching to the converted: Farmer Green made the necessary changes 40 years ago.
I'm sorry I really don't get that impression from the things you are saying.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
I’m simply saying that there is a limit to the size of the national deficit ; the difference between export receipts and import expenditure.
And a great number of economists would disagree. To be fair I don't have much faith in economists. But also again you are deflecting the discussion to the assumption that nothing can be done without harming the economy - that is not proven and many people argue very strongly that it is possible to protect the waterways without significantly reducing production.
I am equating reduced production with reduced GNP, if prices received /unit production do not rise to compensate.
And this is the wrong discussion. If you start from the premise that nothing can be done to improve the quality of the waterways without harming yield you are left with never having the discussion.
That is what is so appalling about The Herald editorial and the comments made by the PM and others. They simply don't even want to hear there is a problem let alone sit down and try and figure out a solution.
If you go into the discussion saying "our waterways are being harmed - what can we do (cheaply) that will protect them?" then you have a much greater chance of succeeding.
In the end you may be right and yield and GNP might go down. But if you start from the point of saying I'm not even going to listen to Dr Joy because I know yield and profits will go down then you can never learn anything.
From what I've read and heard from the experts in the field there are a number of changes that could indeed improve water quality without affecting yield. And other changes that have a very large effect on water quality and small effect on yield.
It seems to me that actually trying to find a solution is better that "seeing no evil".