Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The point being that there will never be a time when a flag change (or any other item of discretionary spending) will be the absolute best thing that the money can be spent on.
The conclusion from this would be that either:
- we should never, ever consider changing our flag
or
- we should do it by the cheapest method, which would be for Key to have whipped his MPs into passing his chosen flag through parliament without further consultation, and then introduce the new flag as old flags (and passports, licenses, aircraft, tanks, etc) are replaced or repainted.Is that method preferable?
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Bart Janssen,
How could you spend it on Women's refuge when there are thousands of refugees in Syria on the point of death?
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to linger,
The fallacy is that a miniscule amount of public spending is of disproportionate importance.
If the flag referendum wasn’t happening, where would that money go. It’s indeterminate?
Sure, it might go on Bart’s allegedly useful research. It might go to GCSB to buy spying hardware, it might add to the billions of foregone tax revenue on Aucklanders' capital gains, it might be used to subsidise some pork-barrel casino or sports ground or it might go to pay for an ineffective drug whose manufacturer has funded an astroturf campaign, or it might pay a few hundred more teachers.
It’s impossible to tell.
You could make the same argument for scrapping any item of allegedly inessential expenditure: How can we spend money on arts when children are starving? How can we afford parks when the money could be sent to help Syrian refugees? How can we spend money on treating heart disease when millions overseas don’t have water?
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I think you should understand the fallacy in that argument.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Bart Janssen,
$60 million is about 0.005% of public spending.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to James Butler,
Broken down? Did it ever work?
-
Even if I thought the new flag was the bestest thing ever, I'd still vote for the current one to discomfit Key. Nothing else matters. I'd imagine maybe a third of the electorate think that way.
Then, you've got probably half the right-wing vote who are inveterate conservatives ("'we' killed lots of foreigners under that flag and hope to kill lots more").
Take those out, and it's hard to see Key winning. Which is a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.
Also, I wonder how the conservatives in the National party are enjoying having Key throw their party so solidly behind a cause they don't buy into?
-
And since you're our resident apparatchik who likes beer, is there a chance Labour might commit to giving councils back the right to allow their grown up citizens to choose how late they stay out, rather than giving unelected cops a veto?
-
I can see this extending to other areas. For less than the price of a business class ticket, one could take a personal servant along on long distance flights with a supply of in-flight treats to serve you with. You could even book them into the middle seat and require them to skulk in the loo queue for the whole flight, leaving that seat free.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Kumara Republic,
feel free to suggest any ideas to bring forward the Auckland housing bubble burst
Well, the Reserve Bank has an inflation target, which conveniently excludes property.
What we could have is a target for Auckland property prices of say 5% annual deflation for the next five years followed by zero growth.
Then you have a bunch of pre-announced measures to achieve this. Start out with (as we have now) LVR ratios and if they don’t work, crank up to a 100% tax on the sale price – GV margin, such that selling over a certain price is nugatory as all the profits will go in tax.
That would destroy the expectation of price gains.