Hard News: On Ideas
160 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Though if you trust your sources enough to run their story without checking it, you really shouldn't be putting your own byline on it.
What I don't know from a glance at today's story is whether the Herald or a parliamentary research unit figured out that there were three properties.
Did the Herald run someone else's story once or twice?
-
What we learn from this:
Temporary support at below subsistence living levels for persons who have assets and are under 65 = BAD
Permanent support at levels 4 times higher, to those over 65, having both assets and incomes = GOOD
-----
To be honest, this looks like a typical example of what's wrong with NZ productivity: a couple around 60 with 3 rentals and a lifestyle block but not enough liquid assets to get them through even the next 5 years.
-
this looks like a typical example of what's wrong with NZ productivity: a couple around 60 with 3 rentals and a lifestyle block but not enough liquid assets to get them through even the next 5 years
Amen to that.
Kong is correct that there are way too many differences between Denmark and NZ to arbitrarily copy their system. However in my lifetime Denmark has gone from an economy dominated by supplying agricutural products to the UK (sound familiar) to one that supports global brands B&O, Carlsberg, Lego, Mærsk, Ecco and is a world leader in windmills, hearing-aids, thermostats, furniture and insulin amongst others.
I'm struggling to think of the Kiwi equivalents, and even if you play the 'Tyranny of Distance' card, theres a case for any Productivity Commission examing why we have struggled to produce similar value-added world beaters.But then the chances of Brash darkening the doorstep of this 'socialist paradise' in search of answers are very slim.
-
But then the chances of Brash darkening the doorstep of this 'socialist paradise' in search of answers are very slim.
Here's a Brash idea.
Sell it all -
Here's a Brash idea.
Sell it allI don't claim to understand economy on a national/international level, but how is this different from a shop putting up signs saying "Everything must go!! Make us an offer! No honest offer refused!"
How does it benefit our economy in the long term if all (or most) assets are sold? Isn't that just a one-off cash injection?
-
How does it benefit our economy in the long term if all (or most) assets are sold? Isn't that just a one-off cash injection?
It's worse than that.
A countries internal economy can be illustrated as being similar to a "family". You do the washing up and Mum makes your bed, your Mum does your laundry, you mow the lawn, Dad goes to work, earns money and buys a petrol lawn mower, your job gets easier Dad now has to by petrol for lawn mower. Dad sees an ad for someone wanting to buy pots and pans so he sells all Mums kitchen equipment and pockets the cash to pay for the petrol for the lawn mower that makes your life bearable.
Mum can't cook any food because she has no pots and pans so you live on takeaways.
Most of your internal economy is swings and roundabouts, your transactions do not affect your external economy. If dad earns enough (foreign earnings) he can afford the takeaways and petrol (imports) if he can't afford the petrol you have to work harder to achieve the same result (inflation)
Simple, eh? But not as simple as those National guys. They are a bit like a Dad that just spends all the money on himself and resents spending anything on his family. -
Martin, Sofie, please. This will be good for New Zealand, because it will bring in much-needed foreign capital. That's important because there's not enough local capital to go around. These benevolent foreigners, in return for their selfless donation of money to New Zealand, are perfectly entitled to demand higher monopoly rents and to repatriate profits in a, well, profligate fashion. But it's for our own good!
-
We've had little trouble attracting foreign investment. Problem is, not enough of it has been the greenfields type. People haven't forgotten the sorry sagas of TranzRail and the Deane-era Telecom, among others.
-
But it's for our own good!
<sarcasm>
Snap! Now I get it. So it's a win-win for all parties going forward.
</sarcasm>I can see the need for investments, but not if it's just a euphemism for selling off assets. If anything we need investments in R&D. I know it's easy for me to just say that - it won't make it happen. And I don't know how to make that happen. But surely we should expect more from this brain trust than a giant SALE-sign.
-
So it's a win-win for all parties going forward?
Only if we can work out a way to align all our ducks to cherry-pick the low-hanging fruit.
It's moaners like Spohie and Steve, always stopping to rearrange the deckchairs, who don't realise we have to be client focussed in these difficult times. It's sink or swim out there. Personally, I think this is a great example of blue-sky thinking.
So what we need is to interface to keep it fluid, run a few more ideas up the flagpole and see who salutes. We need to hit the ground running, have the conversation and become more results-driven. Stop moving the goalposts so that we can stretch the envelope. If they stop rocking the boat, we can start putting some ticks in boxes.
Less is more these days, so we'll go back to basics. With something this iconic we just need to suck it and see.
Clear?
-
It's moaners like Spohie and Steve
What's this Focus Group doing in my Ball Park ?
;-)
I was chatting to a mate last night about R&D tax relief. He pointed out that the likes of Fonterra would claim the relief based on stuff like researching new logos and packaging. I had to concur. -
was chatting to a mate last night about R&D tax relief. He pointed out that the likes of Fonterra would claim the relief based on stuff like researching new logos and packaging. I had to concur.
Maybe so. But if they get higher turnover as a result, who bloody cares?
Plus, avoiding their fringe cases by abolishing the entire thing is really, really, really freaking stupid. Monumentally, unbelievably stupid. I don't care if they claim for research into ways to increase the dairy consumption of one-legged, blind, lesbian Swahilis, so long as they show results. -
Did I hear Len Brown say on Morning Report that they don't want to sell their Auckland airport investments because they provide a 24% return?
Brendon Burns recently wrote about Synlait, a partially Japanese owned dairying company keen to buy up water resources in Canterbury, and the company just happened to have Ruth Richardson on the board.
No wonder foreign investors are keen on NZ assets.
-
Brash and the old young Turks...
Here's a Brash idea.- Sell it all
I love these guys, "Cocky" Brash and "Broken" English, et al - sell, sell, sell and damn the consequences
I love how Bill English always says foreign investment rather than the more accurate, and ultimately destructive, ownership...
(for further reading do visit the excellent CAFCA - Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa website, better yet subscribe to Watchdog and you'll get my slapdash cover cartoon/graphics
as well ;-) )...and now I see Bill says it's all our fault for not saving... So Bill, what does your bank account look like? - do share...
yrs frugally
Parson Monies-IOUs
the buck stops here, ok? -
My acid test for investment, domestic or foreign, has to be "Does it benefit New Zealand?"
Domestic investment is, prima facie, beneficial to the country. It's supporting NZ business, it's not increasing our balance of payments problem, and it's not leading a repatriation of profit to an offshore shareholder. Even those lovely Fay, Richwhite and Brierly chaps were of benefit to NZ with their investments, if only because it's better to be fucked by someone you know than someone you don't. Obviously better still not to be fucked at all, but it was going to happen.
Foreign investment, however, is rather trickier. Can we raise the money in NZ? Can we get the expertise in NZ? Can we ensure that this investment won't result in wholesale repatriation of profits, potentially after there's been an increase in monopoly rents by a disinterested foreign shareholder?
Applying these to Auckland Airport and the Canadian pension fund, why do we need to flog off the shares? It's not like AIAL needs the money. It's purchase of existing shares, not a new issue, and the presumption for a new issue should always be toward Kiwi investors first. Will we get screwed with increased monopoly rents? Quite probably. National don't seem keen on opening a new airport in Auckland, and they're definitely not keen on regulating landing fees and other charges that the airport levies, making for a captive audience that's ripe for a cry of "BOHICA!" So what's the benefit? AIAL appears to have a very competent board, and with the profits it's been reporting it can surely afford to attract whichever international talent it might require even without having to indulge foreign investors. The only benefit I can see, and it surely is a short-term one, is brokerage fees. Oh, right, I see now. We get the benefit of income tax and GST on the brokerage fees charged for the handling of the sales. Silly me, here I was looking for a long-term benefit to New Zealand. What was I thinking? I'll go back to my hole now. -
So Bill, what does your bank account look like? - do share...
Well, according to the Pecuniary Interests Register, he's got interests in a farming company, a farm and a family home in Dipton, and is a member of the Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme. No shadow trusts for holding shares or anything else. In other words, Bill's not got his money where his mouth is. Everyone else should be supporting NZ business, but he's not. Even Key has blind trusts holding shares on his behalf.
Admittedly it's a bit tricky for pollies, especially when they're on the Treasury benches, because of the risk of conflicting interests. Ordinarily that's handled by using blind trusts, as Key has done, but English doesn't have any. Nothing like rank hypocrisy on the part of our elected overlords, hmm.
-
Did I hear Len Brown say on Morning Report that they don't want to sell their Auckland airport investments because they provide a 24% return?
Well, I'd take that with a grain of salt and a whole case of tequila but what's your point? What I find rather amusing about the politics of this is that while the prospect of nasty Ah-rhabs or Yellow Perils getting their paws on Auckland Airport was an unspeakable evil, nobody gave a shit about the Frogs running the trains.
-
Meanwhile, is anyone planning to tell Peter Jackson and Richard Taylor to stop 'stealing' jobs and money from decent, hardworking Americans?
-
Veolia Transport, the rail provider formally known as Connex...
Having had many, how shall I put this, 'sub-optimal customer experiences' with Connex South-Eastern in London, I'd prefer it if they stayed well away from Auckland trains.
I'm more concerned that by relying on Auckland ferries as a primary mode of transport to and from work, I provide money to rampant homophobe Brian Souter.
-
the Frogs running the trains
If I'm not mistaken, Veolia only operate the trains, and aren't in much of a position to under-invest as MAXX/ARTA owns all of the assets and rolling stock? Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
If I'm not mistaken, Veolia only operate the trains, and aren't in much of a position to under-invest as MAXX/ARTA owns all of the assets and rolling stock? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your understanding is the same as mine. The contract for operation is precisely that, operation only. Rolling stock, rails and all the other "real" parts of running a train service are publicly-owned. Long may that continue!
-
Martin, Sofie, please. This will be good for New Zealand,
Get a perrm
It's moaners like Spohie and Steve, always stopping to rearrange the deckchairs,
Get it right, it's Sofie, Spohie doesn't quite get me out there in the sun. ;)
-
Where's that sarcasm tag when we need it. However, classic popculture response - full marks.
-
Granny stirs. John Armstrong, lately accused by some of being a gummint lapdog, is right scathing about Treasury CEO John Whitehead's latest ideological burp, and the gathering buzzards of the 90s reborn.
The constitutional implications of Whitehead's intervention seem to have gone unnoticed. That is because everyone is hardened to the Treasury playing such an overt political role.
...Clearly, however, both the Treasury and English - who this week revealingly said he wanted the reforms in the state sector to "stick" so that no future government can unravel them - are using the recession as cover to reduce the role of the state and strip back the public service to some kind of skeletal level that will make it difficult to rebuild.
...There has been the Prime Minister saying he is not philosophically opposed to privatising state enterprises.
...Meanwhile, Don Brash, market advocate and economic liberal, will head the 2025 taskforce charged with finding ways of bringing New Zealanders' standard of living back to parity with that enjoyed by Australians. Incidentally, that such a task force is deemed necessary is evidence of the bankruptcy of the Treasury's thinking when it comes to fresh ideas.
-
is right scathing
No wonder I am in bed feeling right sick today :( Still Sacha, Didn't I suggest to you that's where we are going? "Damm Auckland, let's screw the whole country" I recall you saying ppp's can have their benefits.Will be waiting to see what gets sold off first.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.