Hard News: Unwarranted risk
255 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Stephen Doyle, in reply to
And if they were in coalition with Labour, would it be countenanced do you think?
-
Sacha, in reply to
No, but it applies pressure on the whole political spectrum in that direction. Opens up some possibilities like CGT does.
-
The first two comments are gold.
Almost certainly National party trolls trying to derail the comments thread. They were so primed and ready with on-message dog whistles in terms of the politics of division that it wouldn't surprise me if they were ninth floor National Party staffers posting under different pseudonyms.
-
And hot off the press: Ports of Auckland has gone for the nuclear option. In response, the ITF has officially declared PoAL a port-of-convenience.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
The usual Randroid trolls are sensing the barbarians are tearing down the gates.
Best they sod off to Atlantis then eh. Any Randroid worth its salt would surely have withdrawn their invaluable talents by now and sat back and watched the world fall back to primordial slime. I mean, what would we have done without the brilliance of CDO's and Hedge funds, without the wonders of computerised foreign exchange systems?.
And don't get me started about the wonders of spot markets for power pricing either. -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It’s just as dog-whistling and clichéd as playing the Elders of Mecca/Gates of Vienna card, which is another common thread of these very same Randroid trolls.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
And hot off the press: Ports of Auckland has gone for the nuclear option.
I am sure that's not legal. As far as I know you can't make someone redundant if the job still exists. However you restructure the employment of stevedores they are still loading and unloading ships.
I think we need an Edgeler on this. -
Sacha, in reply to
I am sure that's not legal
It probably is. If not, are you betting the govt won't change the law to make it so?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It probably is. If not, are you betting the govt won’t change the law to make it so?
If the ITF's port-of-convenience declaration has its intended effect, it'd be hypocritically ironic for a bunch of financially globalist pollies to whinge about 'meddling in domestic affairs' and 'trade warfare'.
-
merc, in reply to
It would be good to know who they are because that sort of comment derails the whole discussion and is noticeably more frequent.
-
The mayor said his ability to intervene in the dispute were "severely limited" by laws governing the port
So, let me get this right? The people of Auckland own the port. They aren't allowed to have a say, through their elected representatives, in how it's run. Instead, it's basically operated as if it was the personal property of the CEO.
Isn't that property confiscation - or doesn't that apply to community property?
-
merc, in reply to
I am not sure about confiscation but what it does say is that POA is the people of Auckland's port in name only, and bodes very badly for further...oh wait it's a privatisation poster child now isn't it?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So, let me get this right? The people of Auckland own the port. They aren’t allowed to have a say, through their elected representatives, in how it’s run. Instead, it’s basically operated as if it was the personal property of the CEO.
That's how it was structured by the Super City creators yes.
Of course, it does also suit Brown to throw up his hands and declare he can't do anything ...
-
merc,
So POA is next on the privatisation block? Hasn't it always been a political football? Whatever happened to Infrastructure Auckland? Has Len cut a deal? Why is this feeling relevant? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10790243
And I see Turners and Growers has just gone to a German company.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10790367 -
Admission: I struggle to understand most of this:
“Profits attributable to minority shareholders (foregone profits) will reduce the surplus, which is partly offset by a reduction in finance costs on the reduced debt.’’
“Over the mixed ownership programme, the forecast finance cost savings exceed the forecast foregone dividends,’’ Mr English said.
“However, those savings are less than the total forecast foregone profits of the SOEs, which include both dividends and retained earnings.
“That is because state-owned enterprises are expected to earn a commercial rate of return that reflects the risk of owning such companies.’’
I don't consider myself stupid, but when it comes to financial language my brain fogs over. I wonder how many New Zealanders feel the same, and that is why so few seem to understand the economic issues facing this country. I think we should have Economics classes at school, it's just as important as Home Economics.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
As far as I know you can't make someone redundant if the job still exists. However you restructure the employment of stevedores they are still loading and unloading ships.
POAL aren't going to be unloading ships themselves, they are going to contract out that role.
-
merc,
“If you can't explain a concept to a 6-year-old, you don't fully understand it.”
Einstein
What is clear is that Bill doesn't really know the outcome. -
Len Brown can blame the supercity structure he inherited as mayor for his inaction, but he could still show some leadership on this issue. He has a voice.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
I think we should have Economics classes at school, it’s just as important as Home Economics.
Both are equally present and equally optional, at least in college.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Len Brown can blame the supercity structure he inherited as mayor for his inaction, but he could still show some leadership on this issue. He has a voice.
Precisely. He may not be able to take direct action, but he can express very strong sentiments, if he does actually have any. It's crazy talk to say the elected representative of the inhabitants of this city is muzzled on any opinion about one of the biggest pieces of infrastructure owned by the city. This is Brown's chance to really flex his muscles in one of the most powerful positions in the country, to which he was elected by a large majority. National may have the national mandate, but Brown has the Auckland one and he can and should use it with just the same vigour. There is no point trying to curry favour with the central government for him - they will always oppose him - hell, his main rival is now IN that government.
As one of the many owners of POAL, I personally would like to sack the management.
-
I just put the term:
National government
into google correlate and set it to New Zealand, the term that correlated most strongly was:
poker face
http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/search?e=National+government&t=weekly&p=nz# -
merc,
...with my muffin I ain't bluffin'...Gaga
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
National may have the national mandate, but Brown has the Auckland one and he can and should use it with just the same vigour. There is no point trying to curry favour with the central government for him – they will always oppose him – hell, his main rival is now IN that government.
The thing he is responsible for, however, is the Auckland Council's demand for a 12% return on assets. He wants it for throughly admirable purposes -- to fund the infrastructure upgrades the government has no interest in, but I don't think there's any getting away from the imperative the council has placed on POAL management.
And I suspect that management would have a response if he was deemed to be undermining them in the pursuit of the goal he has given them.
So yeah, I suspect things are getting a wee bit complicated for Len right now.
-
Ah. Gio has just tweeted this: What Len Brown should do about the POAL dispute.
Very informative.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That's not economics, it's accounting:
Say I own a grocery store.
It's worth $100k. I have a ($100k) mortgage that costs me 8%, so $8k a year. (finance cost)
The store makes $10k a year (profit) , but I only draw out $5k of that (dividend). So it's costing me $3k in cash, but I'm salting away $5k a year in the stores bank account (retained earnings)
If I sell the store and pay the mortgage off, then I ostensibly save the $3k cash. But I'm losing the $2k a year of net retained earnings, so in reality I'm losing out.
That's basically the situation. You could also try modelling it with matchsticks.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.