Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I suppose I am a bit late with this news but I am so pissed off that I had to post it somewhere.
Dita De Boni @KeepingMum Aug 9
Hi all. In answer to questions, it is true the Herald has discontinued my column as of three weeks from now. Reason given = budgetThe rolling maul of National's road to our insignificance rolls on.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich Lock,
No, but it does say: "It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs
Ok, I submit... ;-)
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich Lock,
So 25% unemployment back then would have had a disproportionally greater knock-on effect.
Possibly but I was thinking the workforce back then also included children plus the fact that many just wouldn't be counted. Its a tricky one to figure but the fact is that neo-lib economics seems to claim 6.5% unemployment balances the supply side of the cost of labour so the thinking may go along the lines of morde unemployment = cheaper labour but as I said up thread, neo-lib economics rarely works the way its proponents believe.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
When the fourth National Government set it up that way, did the thought of creating lots of middle class jobs not enter their head?
I would like to think that the reason for doing it were as stated, increasing competition leading to lower prices, at least that what Bill Birch said at the time and maybe they believed it. It just goes to show that the free market economy that is the backbone of neo-lib economics didn't work that time and, to my knowledge rarely does.
Personally I think they have no intention of creating jobs, that is for the market. But if those jobs magically appear they will, inevitably, take the credit. -
Hard News: The Sky Trench, in reply to Hilary Stace,
NZTA people are obviously not cyclists.
They also got it very wrong on Wellington's silly flyover too, but fortunately the people eventually won.According to Peter Dunne, today in Parliament, NZTA is out of control and they have yet to decide whether to appeal the flyover and appear to be ignoring all advice. The head of NZTA is set to resign at thew end of the year and this may indicate a change of attitude within the authority.
I imagine there'd be a risk assessment - is road design covered by H&S legislation nowadays?
I guess that depends on whether or not the worm turns nasty and is deemed "High Risk".
a ribbon cutting deadline set by the PM's office.
Well, what is the point of doing anything other than a photo op for Mr Smile and Wave to prove just how great he is, after all, the cycle path was only the first promise he made and he has to show he can keep a promise, seven long years later.
The naming of the All Blacks' World Cup squad at Parliament this Sunday also smacks of a craven photo-opportunity, too.
zackly.
What tourist wants to cycle or walk on a disused motorway with views obscured by whacking great fences.
You may have the opportunity to ask the Minister for Tourism when he cuts his ribbon.
The part that gets my most annoyed is the "we can't change it now, we have already ordered the parts from Germany" FFS. -
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to James Hart,
I like the way that article ends with the mention of "Canned Laughter" I couldn't help thinking of John Key's performances in Parliament and it reminded me of the old adage, Laugh and the world laughs with you. Perhaps Andrew Little could take some lessons from this guy...
-
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
and it definitely doesn't mean that. Well, unless you insist on it.
Well I don't insist and yes that is my, very simplified, definition.
And notrather than out of someone's arse.
By which I gather you mean mine. If it comes out of the arse then it is either shit or hot air, smelly air to boot.
We need simple definitions for simple people. OtherwiseIt's just another thing we can add to the discussion
and the more you talk the less you say, in terms of people listening and the longer the discussion the less time to get the job done, diminishing returns and all that.
And on Rich's horse analogy, ok perhaps they don't shoot Trojan horses.
:-) -
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich Lock,
(I don't (quite) think the system was designed like this by some sort of shadowy billionaire illuminati cabal).
As far as I can see the article doesn't specifically say that and, although the conspiracy theorist in me craves that conclusion, I don't believe that.
I think it is just a product of the human condition, survival taken to extremes though uncertainty and thus insecurity.
Sure, no company or manager is going to employ somebody to do a bullshit job if it is not going to improve the bottom line of the company, well they would never admit that would they?. Perhaps the old Empire Building strategy comes into play here, Manager wants to appear productive so hires more people to write TP Reports, later, the company employs an HR person because they seek more efficiency and the HR person recommends laying off staff, the Manager then decides which staff and they will never come from his admin department. Greed or survival, it makes no difference to the overall picture.
I read somewhere that during the Depression in '29 the unemployment rate was only 25% of the workforce but that was enough to upset the applecart and in the accompanying graph here it is claimed, for the UK, that an underlying 18-20% of the economy is core bullshit.
I think there is something worth thinking about here but it seems those with the power have other fish to fry, as it were. -
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
we are heading towards
Life vs DeathLike I said earlier, with reference to the video "Humans Need Not Apply",
They shoot horses, don't they?. -
Polity: Meet the middle, in reply to BenWilson,
The first is that we ask them. Then we capture where they think they are, based on what they think "left" means.. The second is that we decide what "left" means for them, and find a way to measure it, based on their other opinions.
So you end up with what you think they mean and end up with what? Something that has no basis in reality. Sure, it gets you a statistically transparent measure but means nothing.
The fact is that if people think Left=loony then they won't vote Left, regardless of what your study tells you. Perhaps we should be looking at why people think Left=loony and Right=right.
Ok, you are going to say "where is the definition of Left v Right?" I see a bright line test here.
Do you care about others? Yes = Left, No = Right.
Simple.
