Posts by Sacha
-
Only when it applies to those filthy folk on benefits - for corporates and other worthy citizens it remains just fine. Having money already is a proxy for success, and only the successful deserve investment.
-
Conrad Heine has written a good quake story for The Economist website
which features the already iconic photo of local lads cracking a pose
-
Bryan Gould questions why government intervention is warranted in both the quake and SCF but not other recent economic disasters.
The victims of unemployment are equally innocent of responsibility for the calamity that has struck them.
They did not cause the recession. The numbers involved are just as large. The economic consequences are equally serious, not just for those directly affected, but also for the rest of us
...
If we can do it for earthquake victims, why not for the unemployed? Yet, in our response to unemployment, there has been no sense of the community pulling together to provide help to those who need it, no recognition that we will all benefit both economically and socially if we invest in the productive potential of all our citizens.
Instead, we have pointed an accusing finger at the unemployed. Not only can we not afford to help them with a crisis for which they are not to blame, we tell ourselves; they should bear not only their costs but ours as well.
-
Just the thing to shore up that saggy kitchen, provided he keeps his yap shut
The hair alone would make a handy draught excluder for a school hall or other vital social infrastructure
-
I still have reservations about Local Authorities collecting payments and even more about them holding such funds
No one said anything about them holding the funds - just being a collection channel exactly the same as the insurance companies are now. Easy to arrange, and they are far from risky or corrupt organisations.
-
To whom? The giver or the recipient?
the reader, if there's any justice
-
their conduct has been so squeaky clean you could eat off it
Agreed, all round - though some mentioned our friend Paul Henry striking a bum note. Maybe he and the entitled Ms Watkins have been to the same charm school.
-
Sacha: With all due disrespect, I move in slightly more elevated "blue circles" than you do, and Slater is regarded as a rather sad embarrassment.
Slater is clearly not regarded as enough of an embarrassment by those who determine whose views get broadcast. And I'm talking the Ak establshment, not just the Nats. With respect, neither of us are at those tables.
-
Bomber is less restrained (warning, contains CAPITALS):
Let's get this straight, $1.6 billion to bail out Mr Magoo was not a moral hazard even though once National included him in the guarantee scheme for political reasons, SCF went onto behave and lend in the exact manner people knowing they will be bailed out by the Government do.
THAT WASN'T A MORAL HAZARD, oh no, that was prudent arse kissing for the wealthy wankers who jumped in to milk this system for as much as they could, we had to bail out National's well connected money mates for the 'National Interest'.
...
So what about the 10 000 Christchurch residents who are uninsured? What about them? Will we bail them out with the speed John Key bailed Mr Magoo out? Like hell he will, all of a sudden those 10 000 Christchurch residents are a 'MORAL HAZARD' - note, bailing John Key's wealthy chums out with $1.6billion wasn't a moral hazard, but helping the 10 000 uninsured residents from one of the worst earthquakes this country has seen in 80 years IS A MORAL HAZARD.The unblinking manner Key used to just dump those 10 000 uninsured Christchurch quake survivors on The Nation and Q+A yesterday was jaw dropping...
-
Just found your tweets, Phil, including this one:
Q about uninsured people. Key fudged the answer, talked about most people have to have insurance due to mortgage #eqnz
Matches the dodging on television when the matter is raised. I guess time will tell and they have a lot of other things to sort out.