Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to 81stcolumn,
I figured as much but I thought I'd have a whinge anyway.
It's a whingeworthy topic.
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to 81stcolumn,
Unlikely:
Of course. I was using hyperbole. I don't know how anyone could possibly afford a PhD unless they were already rich, or had a master plan for the use of it (probably in academia, but maybe in some specialist industry).
-
I think Finlayson is probably talking about The Hobbit.
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Which means in turn that people with good *science* degrees (not BAs) are working as shop assistants
How long before a doctorate is really the bare minimum you need before you can be trusted with a cash till.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Steven Peters,
I can tell you why I don't agree with them.
Fragmentation: Yes, "no party vote threshold" is by definition more fragmented. However, you have to believe that fragmentation is bad to consider this a problem.
Less effective: It will be harder for parliament to ignore the opinions of such small groups as might gain representation under a no-threshold change. This will mean that decision making will more slowly. If this is how you define "less effective" then yes, it will be less effective. But you would still need to show that "less effective" is "less good". Ignoring minority opinion, or even majority opinion (if the minority that is excluded actually supports the "real" majority, and the power holders are thus themselves really in the minority) is not necessarily a good thing.
Tenuous coalitions Yes, it will be easier to break ranks, as the threshold for independent entry to parliament will be lower. But it will only destroy a coalition in the case that enough people are actually dissenting within that coalition that it no longer has the numbers. In that case, the dissenters have moved toward the majority opinion, again. Again, I don't see how the high threshold stopping people from being able to move with majority opinion is a good thing.
In short all of these arguments suffer from essentially saying "the current system is better because it is better". They define better as the current system, and are thus circular.
The positive arguments for a lower threshold are not less circular, unfortunately. I personally think that majoritarianism is the soul of democracy, and party power has cast a long shadow over it for far, far too long, and any moves that bring us closer to majoritarianism are better.
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
They don't have jurisdiction, sure. But that doesn't mean those governments won't actually just honor the bills too, in some kind of reciprocal arrangement. I expect this will eventually happen. It's quite an amazing setup, really, that this kind of debt can hang over you in perpetuity. Any other kind of debt, if you stop making payments, they come after you fast, take whatever you've got, and bankrupt you if it's not enough. The possibility of that situation (that you might not have enough and will have to go bankrupt) is practically the only reason that lenders can justify charging substantially more than the basic inflation rate for loans. But for inescapable lifelong put-it-on-my-tab we-can-come-after-you-everywhere debt, this risk isn't really there, short of the actual death of the borrower. Yet they still charge market interest rates. Debt owed to the government really is, as you say, more like taxes. You pay, or you die.
Ironically, it's also caused an inflationary bubble in education. The numbers of people taking up tertiary has only risen since loans came in. Because you can borrow against your future, you can get an education. Because everyone can, you have to get an education (or you aren't qualified to things). So it loops around. This is also an international phenomenon, far, far bigger in the US than anything we have here. Which is why I think eventually the enforcement of chasing it up will gradually be agreed on by the masters of the universe. The bubble will continue to swell, people will have to become more and more qualified to get access to the shrinking pot of real wealth, so they will have to take on more and more debt. I don't know where it ends. If it's a bubble, it bursts. Or it could just correct for a very, very long time, with hordes of very highly educated youngsters being unable to find work, unable to pay back any debt, flooding out to wherever there is work until all such locations are saturated. Then...I don't know.
</end mostly off-topic work-avoiding rant>
-
OnPoint: Budget 2013: Bringing Down the…, in reply to Keith Ng,
Pretty sure I had to sign something to get a student loan. Marginally sure that something said that it was a loan, and that I had to pay it back.
Pretty sure that happened to me too. I signed something that had some fairly clear terms regarding when and how to pay back, interest rates that were pegged, an exclusion regarding having to pay back when overseas, etc. I read it all because the loan was going to be with me for a long time. Then a few years later, the government changed the terms of the deal I had signed, jacking up the interest rates. At that point I felt a little like Lando Calrissian:
Me: But we had a deal!
Government: I am altering the deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further....
Me: This deal is getting worse all the time.
<Into PA. Students of NZ, the Market Empire has taken control of your loans. I suggest you leave immediately><thousands of people flee> -
I'm glad to see that the questions around the definition of "consensus" got raised. It seems to mean anything from bare majoritarianism to unanimity, depending what outcome the user desires. I don't much like it as a word, would probably only use it in the case of a small number of people, and usually meaning unanimity in that case. It's a quick question, like asking for a show of hands, to ascertain a ball park. "Do we have a consensus?" is something I'd ask if I just wanted to know if there was anyone who disagreed. If it's unanimous, then we certainly have a consensus. If not, it's not so clear, so the question gets more specific, typically "Do we have a majority". Having thus bisected the possibilities, usually that would involve a count if it wasn't glaringly obvious, so no further questions are needed about the level of support.
-
Bars will kick out people who are too intoxicated. But the casino will only kick you out when you are actually cleaned out. Or if you win too much.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to Stephen Doyle,
Yes, good analogy. If you get caught drinking and driving you lose your right to drive for a time. No such thing happens with disastrous life-wrecking gambling.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 351 352 353 354 355 … 1066 Older→ First