Posts by JohnAmiria
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
BTW - when I say 'like' i mean i don't hate it.
Like wot i told your mama last night before I called her a taxi... -
Like Robyn, I also like the logo. When I first saw it in the NZ Herald story I thought "Hmmmm?" but then I turned the page and saw it used on a half page ARC ad. It actually works when you see it in that context. The following day they ran another ad (a different one) and it worked there too.
That said, it did also seem to me to be a throw back to the logo the Auckland A's (now the Auckland Blues) had in the 90s. If we're going to use the 'A' (someone's obviously following the KISS principle) then what a pity we couldn't co-opt the Radio Active '@' logo. (By co-opt I don't mean 'steal' - we could pay them what we paid Triangle TV for their logo).
But anyway, as we speak, a PR flunkie is writing a report on how the logo has been recieved and is now including the words: "... and also inspired many pages of spirited debate on the prestigious Public Adddress website, with the majority of comments being overwhelmingly positive ..."
-
Wow, we just went there!
No, no ... I just had a touch of the Ranapias. As you were ...
-
Russia has been picked clean, hence his desire to go to Africa.
-
It's just a stupid thing to say.
Yes, it was. Right up there with 'the Bible says Adam and Eve, not Adam & Steve' and should be treated as such. Franks presumably made that comment when speaking to people who wanted to hear exactly that. That he's been called on it won't change anyone's opinion of him.
Hoary old clichés about people voting for someone they'd like to have a beer with were thumpingly borne out:
I'm confused. Are you saying the cliché is true or not true? Because I got hammered in the other thread for trotting out an old cliché...
But yes, I think it is true. American's do seem to prefer to vote for someone they think they can have a beer with. Which is why the Republicans are trying hard to paint Obama as an 'elitist'. It's why Clinton was seen having a beer and a whiskey chaser during her Primary run.
But she's been one-upped by Palin and the whole VPILF thing (which the 'family values' Republicans have done nothing to squash). Perhaps in a few years we'll be reduced to 'Which Presidential Candidate would you like to watch doing your wife?" instead of having a beer with. In which case I'd hope Obama would romp home ahead of McCain. Americans are funny.
-
er ... the last bit is metaphorical! (or is that allegorical?)
-
Okay. Let me try to prove my 'Liberal' credentials:
I was completely unimpressed by the Weekend Herald's trumpeting of Taranaki-born Stephen Jennings, one of New Zealand's richest men. The front page item was a once-over-lightly "I got rich and we all can too if we just give it the ol' kiwi try" but the feature story inside was more telling. Jennings made is fortune in the frontier days of post-communist Russia. Originally employed by Credit Suisse First Boston to privatise Russia's first-ever company, Jennings realised the 'assets' were being sold cheaply:
The factory sold for less than $1 million. Jennings had seen a similar factory sold in Poland for more than $100 million.
He saw the profits to be made. He also saw the way the world was changing, and that there were not just more Bolshevik Biscuit Factories, but many more countries like Russia as well.
Yes indeedy. Jennings now has an eye on Africa and sees opportunity to 'help' in Zimbabwe:
Zimbabwe looks good in Jennings' "medium-to-long-term view". It has resources, a good education system, "the best management in Africa, is in a high growth region, with a seven million-strong diaspora that will come back if things go well."
Damn that liberal media! I had no idea Zimbabwe was a nation of plum trees ripe for the picking.
Jennings, 48, is talking to the Weekend Herald because he believes New Zealand is "squandering" its potential. He's ready to give away his low profile here, saying he wants to pass on what he's learnt.
So we should go to distressed economies, buy their assets at fire-sale prices, and then resell them to global corporates at market rate? Nice for us, but not so nice for the locals. But still, Jennings left me wondering if Fay Richwite has just been sitting on her ass all these years:
Last month, Forbes magazine put his stake in Renaissance Group at $5.2 billion, much higher than previous estimates of his wealth at $1.6 billion.
My point? ~ don't try to suggest Key was a member of the Hitler Youth when there are plenty of real Nazis around.
-
Oh, okay, you said it because it was a cliche ...
Er... yes, actually. My point (obviously poorly made) was that if you are going to demonise Key because he once worked for Meryll Lynch therefore he must be one of those bastards who fuct the global economy then the same 'logic' holds true: Labour don't understand business because they've never run a business. (And spare me the Chris Anderton story, please). What do I want in a political party? A well rounded group with some real world life experience.
[I] realise that what you really mean is the people who teach the country's children and organise the country's workers do not work in the real world
Again, where did I say that?
How, exactly, would the New Zealand Labour Party have regulated the American financial markets that John Key was trading in? I'm a bit unclear on this point.
Well, duh. I'm suggesting Labour could have regulated our own market. But one example: Up until recently anyone could set themself up as a 'Financial Planner', take people's money, and invest it on their behalf. They didn't need any qualifications and they didn't have to declare whether they were getting any commissions from the companies they were investing in. Or if they were investing your money in their cousin's Ostrich Farm.
Earlier this year Lianne Dalziel had this to say:
"Though we are regulating to improve the quality of financial advice in the market we all know that ultimately the responsibility for financial decisions and risks lie with the individual decision maker", she said.
"I confess that I do not understand why people who have spent their lives working hard to save their money can invest in products without doing the same level of hard work and taking independent professional advice."
Well, the problem is that most people thought they were taking professional advice, but it turned out that the anyone with offices and a big radio/TV campaign could hold themselves out to be a Financial Planner/Advisor.
how many students do you know who've never had to work while they were studying?
Well, duh, again. Zero. I worked while at Uni, my wife worked, my friends worked ...
But anyway ... I _still__ haven't got to the bit I wanted to say. I shall do that now. Chat amongst yourselves... -
a lot of people ARE troubled by the fact that the `fact cats' will get away without any consequences for their actions. One of the major demands being placed on those who are trying to put together `rescue' packages is to also find some way of, if not punishing those who have been so delinquent, at least finding some way to make sure that they don't profit from this kind of delinquency in the future. Obama expresses that sentiment.
And I share that sentiment. Which is why I say Labour had the chance to regulate, but didn't. But there's no reason they (because does anyone really think the Maori Party are going to side with National?) can't regulate in the future.
FYI: When I bought a new house in the 90s I kept the old one and rented it. I rented it below market rate and I found it was never short of tenants. As the property market exploded I was able to remortgage my properties and buy another rental property. Lucky me. Then Cullen (about 2001/2002?) started making signals that too many people were entering the property rental market because of the tax benefits, implied they were fat cats making it tough for real kiwi's (despite many Labour MP's also having rental properties in Family Trusts), and said Labour would prefer people invested in the Share Market, as this would help NZ business and be better for our economy. And then Labour started work on changing the Residential Tenancies Act, and asked the IRD to look at LAQC's and Trusts ...
So I figured the writing was on the wall, sold my rentals, and invested the after-tax proceeds in the NZ sharemarket. Big mistake. What I have learnt is that little people have absolutely no control over share prices, you basicly hitch your wagon and hope for the best. I didn't invest in Finance Companies, just Index stocks like TENZ, Mid-Cap, and so forth. Oh, and some AirNZ shares after Helen told us not to sell. Despite reading about how well the share market was doing I was surprised at how low my returns were after fees and taxes were deducted. It's my feeling that the only people who make money out of the market are the brokers, managers, and traders. The rest of us are just there as some sort of mattress for their gang-bang.
-
Why not go and look it up instead of recycling a cliche?
See my explanation above. Or do we only trot out cliche from one side here?