Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
Just as well we're in the deepest recession of my whole life then.
It's kinda gambling to organise events 5 years in advance in the hope that they'll actually happen at an opportune stage in the economic cycle.
Oct 24th next year, France will be headed home with the cup (probably) and all the extra workers hired for the six weeks will be on the dole (definitely).
-
Further, the Tourism Research reports are based around a common axiom - they assume that an event (or any economic activity) generates wealth in proportion to the amount spent, and use fudge-factors (sorry, multipliers) to inflate that figure.
Baade (Handbook on the economics of sport, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006, ch16) critiques this approach on a number of points:
- the impact analysis uses net spending figures and ignores the displacement of spending by those not involved with the event.
- a portion of spending on the vent is repatriated overseas as profit (by foreign-owned hotel chains, breweries and the like).
- overprovision of facilities in order to host a major event leads to inefficient use of resources following the event (empty stadia, unoccupied team bases, bankrupt boatyards)
- economic impact of disruption caused by event related constructionThere is also a macro-economic angle. In a boom, providing further artificial stimulus to the economy is inflationary, and the impact is felt nationally. The ecomomic boost of sporting events during a boom may be offset by higher interest rates needed to contain inflation.
I'd expect these factors to be at least discussed in the report. As is usually the case in economic reports commissioned by government departments with an axe to grind, they aren't.
-
We know. It's still OK for people to enjoy something which isn't popular worldwide, I take it?
I'm happy for people to enjoy anything they like, each to their own. I question why my dollars have to pay for their enjoyment.
My point, which I thought was obvious, is that the worldwide impact of hosting a rugby game is much exaggerated. A majority of our tourist base (Aussies, Brits, continental Europeans, North Americans) are not interested in rugby, and are unlikely to be attracted by the World Cup.
And your point is what exactly?
Yup, the popular passive-aggressive bullying tactic comes out. Refuse to get a bleeding obvious point and try to make the commenter look stupid. Not going to bother responding, read the comment again.
The sour and negative view that it’ll all suck balls seems to be one peculiar to New Zealand.
There is increasing grass-roots opposition to Big Sport worldwide. In vancouver, there were anti-olympic riots. There's also substatial opposition to the London 2012 olympics, centred in the areas that are being 'regenerated'.
Not everyone is drinking the feelgood Kool-Aid.
hip operations
Did I mention healthcare - I did not. On education, It's fairly clear that if we had a better educated population translates into long term economic success. Right now, we're being told that the public cash isn't available for that goal - both at the early childhood end, where hours are being cut and at the tertiary end, where access is being artificially limited.
quite a lot of research
I'm not convinced by those references. Sure, if you subsidise an industry enough, whether it's sport, car making or arms manufacture, you create jobs. It's questionable as to whether those are new jobs or whether people are simply diverted into working in the subsidised areas.
-
Maybe that will compensate for the non-rugby tourists who will give NZ a wide berth next summer. (Rugby is a minority sport in all of the countries that play it except NZ and the Pacific Islands. Outside those countries, it's a completely marginal sport).
Is there any actual academic evidence that spending public money on glamour projects, like movies and sporting events, actually produces a return? Or compares that return with money spent on education, housing and public transport?
-
supposing that judges care little for the rule of law and the maintenance of human rights, wanting only to deliver judgements that are expedient for the purposes of the authorities of the day.
Well, an NZ judge might think, as Lord Denning did, over the Guildford Four, that:
"If they [The Guildford Four, who were suing the police for assault] won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."
That was the leading British judge of the day, suggesting that evidence, however strong, that undermined the policing system should be ignored in order to maintain that system.
-
Just saw this (hat tip to Danjite): Feds (sic) sues LucasFilm for undermining VFX artists.
Apparently the US government is alleging that Lucasfilm and Pixar illegally conspired to limit workers payrates. Still, if they got accused of this here, that nice Mr Key would just amend the Commerce Act, no doubt.
Also, saw Made In Dagenham over the hols. Stirring tale of workers standing up for their rights. Was made in the eponymous town. Somehow, I don't think the producers got wined and dined by Brown or Cameron to get it made in the UK.
-
Hard News: Behaving badly at the bottom…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Yes, but if you get rejected repeatedly, do you have to sit around all week or do they send you home?
I'd love to do jury service, and have been summoned twice, but I can't afford it. With the rates of compensation, it seems to be only an option for the very rich (who can ignore a few days loss of wages) or the very poor for which the few dollars a day is a reasonable deal. So I've produced an employers letter and been excused each time.
I suspect if they recompensed for loss of earnings, there would be no problem attracting jurors.
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 2:…, in reply to Islander,
AFAIR, an incoming SWIFT(1) is supposed to be processed to a schedule. It's up to the bank what rate they give you on receipt (assuming the payment is in a foreign currency) but they may have T's & C's mandating the rate at COB on the date of clearance, or something.
If you wan't more control over this, you might want to open overseas accounts for your FX royalties and then do the transfers when you feel the rate is good. That way, the rate (as well as all the fees) are known in advance.
Also, I think a reasonable SWIFT timeframe is 2-3 days - it's a fast automated process. Any more is fluffing at one end or the other. It's worth asking around a few banks, and also investigating independent FX traders, of which there are a few in NZ that deal with retail customers (as opposed to Air NZ buying a 777).
1. Society For Worldwide Interbank Funds Transfer - the organisiation that arranges the process to send money between banks.
-
I guess if you never want to do jury service, put "Sensible Sentencing Campaigner" down on the next eletoral registration form.
But be warned, you'll get necklaced when the revolution happens.
-
Hard News: Holiday Open Thread 1: Beach…, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
I went away, but I'd have liked to have something other than two blokes prattling inanely and playing their cheese collection every afternoon. A lot of people must be doing roadtrips or just driving around and want to listen to the radio, right?