Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Except that in this case, apparently high interest = no risk at all.
Indeed. The RDGS turns risky financial investments into a one-way bet.
-
Thank fuck. I thought we were being lined up to gift several hundred dollars a head to farmers, property spivs and an overseas billionaire.
Instead we're gifting several hundred dollars a head to gamblers too stupid to understand that high interest = high risk. Its no different from guaranteeing people's TAB losses.
-
if South Canterbury Finance has poor record keeping, poor lending policies, questionable governance and probably lacks the financial resources to pay back its investors then how did it get the ok to join the guarantee scheme in the first place?
A very good question. The RDGS is insurance. Every insurance company protects itself against this sort of moral hazard by e.g. not insuring homes from owner-arson. I would have expected our government to have taken at least some basic steps to protect us from the financial equivalent. If they didn't, then its gross incompetence, which looks set to cost us a large amount of money.
This debacle also shows what a dumb idea it was to extend the RDGS to finance companies. It is one thing to protect customers, who are innocent third parties. It is quite another to protect investors. What next? The government will guarantee people against gambling losses?
Unfortunately, those shit decisions have been made, so all we can do now is try and mitigate the damage from them. And if its a question of $1500 million or $600 million, then I'd go for the latter - followed by cutting those finance companies out of the RDGS ASAP.
-
Potted plant would do a good job - but not a bonobo. Waaayy too smart to go near such a mess-
But ACT caucus meetings would be a lot more interesting with a bonobo chair (and Craig's descriptions would be a lot more literal)
-
Something that I'm having difficulty understanding in relation to the court action is: what are the grounds? Under what law are CSC bringing their action?
IANAL, but it seems to be a straight out judicial review, reviewing certain NIWA decisions for illegality, irrationality, or procedural unfairness. It will hinge on the central ground - "irrationality" - which will likely require a court to find that appointing a highly qualified, profssional scientist to do work in their area of expertise was somehow "unreasonable" or defied logic. And that I think is highly unlikely to succeed.
-
All you need do is suggest that the peer review process might have some slight bias (other than truth)
Peer review isn't about truth, its about being decent work. Truth is what hopefully emerges when people read it and argue about it.
-
Why, yes, not only did I just Godwin this thread, but I explicitly compared climate change deniers with holocaust deniers.
Nothing wrong with that; they're on about the same intellectual level.
-
Short version of the claim: the decision to allow Jim Salinger, and experienced and professional climate scientist, to do climate science was unreasonable and unethical.
That's absurd on its face. How do they possibly think they can succeed? Are their heads so deeply buried in their own bullshit that they can't spot absurdity when they see it? (OTOH, given the nature of that bullshit, that's highly likely).
Meanwhile, they get to libel every climate scientist in NZ through the courts, by alleging that "NIWA’s 1999 decision was influenced by the expectation that major NZTR warming would encourage funding for additional climate change research". Yeah, because scientists are about getting the $ (which is why they're working in underfunded, underpaid roles in NZ) rather than solving the puzzle.
-
Matthew: yup - read the statement of claim.
The problem for them is that the courts are likely to show a large amount of deference to NIWA over their scientific decisionmaking.
-
the public has a right to know whether this court case is being paid for by big business.
Since they've formed a charitable trust, they'll actually needto disclose their donations. Though they'll likely launder them through the NZCSC first.