Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
how many beneficiaries, pensioners and others would have been fucked fifty ways to Sunday if Bolger had been a real "neo-liberal" purist and let the BNZ fall over?
I have to agree with Kyle, fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. I have to admit that with the total collapse of the financial system the possibility of a welfare state goes with it. The whole system relies on the pretence of money and its perceived value. The problems arise when the greedy want all that "Hard Earned Money"™ for themselves, pointless really.
-
Prove it! Prove that the changes will be costly and expensive.
Darnit . You beat me to it.
This is an assumtion that the denialanalysts adhere to apparently. According to anecdotes, apparent atmospheric anomalies appear to attenuate accumulative aspects of anthropathetic adversity annat. And that's expensive. Innit?.Steve, how do you explain away Harry Read Me.txt?
Well, I don't have to, same as I don't have to explain away anything you say. But you manage do it your self...
Maybe there are perfectly reasonable and justifiable explanations for Harry’s problems, but I have not seen it or heard of them, and the CRU data set is one of the key datasets upon which the whole AGW edifice has been built. The CRU output is apparently similar to the output of the other datasets, so are they all similarly screwed up?
I would suggest that if the output of other Datasets agrees with the output of the CRU set, then they are in agreement and therefore statistically significant.
Just because you have not seen nor heard it does not make it not so. -
James. Just go and put a big plastic bag over your head, fill it with Nitrogen and seal it. Unless, of course, you can find incontrovertible evidence that Nitrogen is toxic, in which case don't do it.
-
I think the idea of a club, or what have you, where you could go with a girlfriend, you know, a friend who just happens to be a girl (or the other way around of course) and you can both pop off for a shag and come back and chat about it over a drink or three, could be a great idea.
It would save all that bother of having to say "I suppose we're a couple now" and all that exclusivity that goes with it. Let's face it. If your partner likes to go off and have a game of golf or go to the theatre or movies, with a friend we have no problem, we don't have to share all the same interests when in a relationship, but as soon as you shag someone, well all hell breaks loose
Yup, so two pints of larger and a blowjob please.
Or is that all a bit Roman for your liking?.
;-) -
The selling-off of Telecom (it was doing very well as an SOE, by all accounts), BNZ, NZ Rail, etc. All things that have ultimately had a very negative effect on NZ's economic effectiveness (well, excepting BNZ; the issue there was more the bail-out) over the long term. Busting unions and turning workers into economic units rather than partners in economic activity. That attitude came from the Rogernomes, but it was the acolytes who followed in the last National Government who really fucked us over.
And now we have Paula Bennet telling the sick and injured that they must either work or starve whilst her cohorts cut funding to essential services. We used to have the railways, Power Boards, Meat works, Forestry, Radio and TV, Telecoms, Ministry of Works... the list goes on. All these organisations acted as a sink for surplus labour, it gave jobs to the rest of the country that wasn't employed by the private sector and maintained out infrastructure. That was until the greed heads decided that they should reap the benefits of our hard earned National assets.
Sure, it wasn't "efficient" but as a controlled internal economic system it provided a sense of belonging to a great deal of people, it gave them something to get out of bed in the morning for. Something other than fear.Association of Consumers and Taxpayers? Ah consumption, of course, we call it Tuberculosis these days, don't we?.
(On the subject of the BNZ bailout. The $650 million cost of the bailout was the same amount that Jenny Shipley took from the beneficiaries that time around.) -
Wasn't Roger Douglas in a left-wing party? Doesn't he still claim to be a socialist in some sense? I'm confused.
You're kidding, right? Or inhabiting some weird, bizarre-o, parallel universe
I thought it was common knowledge, Bro. Douglas' parents have been rotating in their tombs since '87
Douglas was born on 5 December 1937. His family had strong ties with the trade-union movement, and actively engaged in politics. His father Norman Douglas and a brother Malcolm Douglas both became Labour politicians.
Douglas received his secondary education at Auckland Grammar School, and gained a degree in accountancy from the University of Auckland.
See, there you go, accountancy is evil.
Accountants, creeps and Tax avoiders. -
Annoying Cunty Types
-
I have long been amused by the term "Come Fuck Me Boots" because it reminds me of a pair of Cherry Red Steel Capped Boots with bright yellow laces I once had which could only be described as "Don't Fuck With Me" boots.
-
But management doesn't 'produce' anything!
Aha! See, that's where you pinko socialist commie bastards are wrong. Who do you think has to look after all that "Hard Earned Money"™?. You see, "Hard Earned Money"™ is not like ordinary money. Minimum wages or low pay are good for the bottom line or shareholder dividends and that ain't easy to justify hence "Hard Earned Money"™ The suffering that managers have to go through knowing that the people that produce the profit are the ones who earn the least. So you see that "Hard Earned Money"™ must be appreciated more than wages or a benefit (which is why it is called a Salary, salt, wounds etc.) More of this "Hard Earned Money"™ must be left in the pockets of middle class management and business types, by cutting taxes and reducing regulation of such things as workers rights and conditions by reducing Government interference, so that they can buy more of the things that the low paid produce. Otherwise the low paid will lose their jobs. See? simple isn't it?.
-
This is the most sensible thing I have heard on the subject...
From PunditRalph Sims on February 20, 2010
...if Tom and his ICSC colleagues are utimately proved right (even against all the scientific evidence as I see it), then many of the mitigation solutions being proposed make good sense anyway in terms of energy security, improved health, sustainable development and growth, employment prospects etc etc. So we win regardless.
If Tom and ICSC are wrong, but we take no adaptation measures to combat the perceived risks until it is too late, then we lose.
Does ICSC really want to take that risk? I certainly am not prepared to.
The point is quite clear. Whether or not climate change is caused by Humans or not, greater efficiencies in energy use are the way to go, regardless.