Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think there are a number of problems with trying to stop currency trading:
- It would remove liquidity from the market. For instance, if AirNZ buy a 777, that's a huge amount of NZD to convert to USD in one hit - there are unlikely to be enough businesses wanting to go the other way that day, so it's likely to send the NZ dollar down while the big deal is unwound.
If you want an example of an illiquid market, look at houses. Your house could be worth $200k or $300k depending entirely on circumstances. If somebody turns up who's always wanted to live there, it's worth a lot - if you're forced to sell it to the highest bidder, it probably isn't.
- It would be near impossible to enforce. How does New Zealand stop someone in Switzerland trading with someone in Luxembourg? Or, even if they can control the actual currency, from making a bet on the currencies future value?
- It wouldn't make people any happier with the parity. The NZD is at USD0.49 for several reasons - one of them being that small countries currencies are seen as at high risk of fluctuation and our interest rates aren't high enough to compensate for that risk. That wouldn't go away if there was no speculation.
People on here are unhappy with the parity because they can't buy cheap toys any more. Exporters are unhappy with the parity because their businesses aren't structured to pay first world wages and still produce goods people want to buy. That'll nearly always be the case - actually, both being true probably indicates the parity is about right.
-
George, how do you suggest we set the rate for the NZ currency? By government fiat, with the rate determined by whether farmers or Mac buyers currently have the ear of government?
That was tried by most developed states for quite a few years. It had numerous problems - the main one being that the official rate became out of line with what the currency was really worth, creating numerous difficulties. Also, the required exchange controls became ridiculous - to the extent that Brits in the 1970s were limited to taking no more than GBP100 on holiday with them, for instance.
Not to mention black markets, etc..
-
I think with name suppression:
- there seem to be a lot of cases where a whole set of trials are interlinked so that all but the final one needs to be suppressed to avoid prejudicing the others. Can't the courts organise things to avoid this?
- I don't really buy the idea expressed in the document that nobody has "special status" deserving name suppression. All Blacks charged with assault certainly seem to.
- the document doesn't talk about jurisdiction in the case of the Internet. Maybe Graeme could answer this, but is there any way an NZ court can enforce a name suppression order overseas, especially in the US where they have a more robust approach to free speech (and a laxer approach to justice)?
-
Comics throwing a paddy when someone suggests their stuff is as funny as cold sick - old, but entertaining when there's nothing else to write about without going outside. See also Mike King vs Mikey Havoc.
I guess it's the collateral the Herald needs to make us read a National Party pamphlet. I doubt they'll go bust - I reckon they're one of those iconic NZ businesses that John Key intends to rescue.
-
In the dim, dark past Amex had what they called "country club billing" (guess it's a US thing) that gave you images of the zip-zap slips for all your spending. I guess it wasn't popular enough to justify the added processing.
-
Tizard: One of the big recording studios told me that whereas a couple of years ago they were fully booked and when they were giving time away it was at 4am, now they are only about 60 per cent booked.
You don't think that might be due to most musicians now having pretty effective recording technology at home? Maybe they should be banning Cubase, Ableton and the like?
-
I guess it's quite possible for pokie machines to churn out a whole pile of coins and still have more in reserve, or to not pay even when somebodies filled them with cash.
One could even conceive (this isn't actually an industry known for its honesty) of the casino having staff play the machines incognito using a special mode, win nothing and walk off looking disconsolate (thus attracting the gambler to that machine).
-
I know lots of people who derive innocent pleasure from, say, the occasional ingestion of marijuana. The law takes quite a different view of the two activities.
Wrongly, in my view. Drugs (all of them) should be legal, at least for the user.
The cycleway boondoggle was being sold on a basis of the backpacker tourists it would attract. It occurred to be that a cheaper option would be to legalise MDMA, which would bring the kids of Europe and America here in their millions.
-
Parliament, having been advised (as you point out) on the inadvisability of delegating authority to bring a bill in, went ahead and did so for this one. I take that as being a clear decison that it's up to the executive to choose when the bill comes in, whether today, April 28th, or sometime in the year 2525.
Maybe the MPs considering this bill (Greens of course excepted) didn't know what was going on and were keener to make jokes and waffle about records they had as schoolkids than review the legislation. Still, they are considered grownups and what they decide gets implemented.
So I don't see that the government is obliged to implement s92c promptly. They could quite reaonably, and complying with their obligation to implement it at some stage, spend some time consulting and then pass a bill amending the section.
-
BTW, has David Slack been invited to discuss his plan for a trans-Waitemata harbour transparent tube travelator link?
I reckon that could employ 2768 people for 34 months at a cost of only $94,580,123. The resulting tourist income (what other city has a subsea transparent tube travelator) will be at least $47,651,987 per year.
(Precise figures always make it look as if you thought about it).