Posts by insider
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Vision Thing, in reply to BenWilson,
NZ isn't growing or dividing the pie - it's actually fucking the pie.
Or the good old bite and suck (as Big Ben used to advertise). The seared mouth was usually not worth the runny muck that filled it
-
Hard News: The Vision Thing, in reply to Idiot Savant,
MED Already has multiple ministers - Telecommunications, consumer affairs, Resources and Development, Energy, Econ Dev. Nothing new here, just bigger and probably more unwieldy.
Personally I think the process stuff - regulations about toasters and companies register etc should be separated out from the strategic planning element. Although that could create a Ministry of Administrative Affairs, which rings a bell...
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
@ Ben
"We were actually talking about things that belong to the NZ Government before you tried to muddy the waters by talking about your own business."
Thanks. It wasn't the intention to muddy the waters. I didn't think you were just talking about NZ Govt assets alone because you talked about the risk of deterring investment in general and that not all overseas investment being a benefit. I disagree that there is some form of national loss, be it ownership or whatever, because, as Gareth says, you get a whole wad of cash in return to do with as you want; you can invest in NZ in some way or invest on Sydney hookers, as one 'owner' of NZ business recently did.
It seems a huge selective morality is at play around the sale of a business to foreigners. No-one would give a stuff if I were cashed up and sold that NZ money in return for Ferraris. But sell a business to the Germans and I'm suddenly handing over a piece of the country. I can't see a huge difference in the two events in terms of their impact on NZ.
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to Sacha,
Well that's just wrong Sacha. Business ownership and responsibilities are totally separate from citizenship rights. That's how foreign ownership is able to occur and still be subject to NZ law...
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to James Butler,
@ James
NZ is many things and we can debate what it is but the "set of people living in New Zealand" seems not only limited but gramatically poor. Ben seems to think it's some form of collective that has dibs on my property and is devalued by me selling it, because that's giving it away, whatever 'it' is.
Well the set of people living in New Zealand have no rights to my business. That is unchanged if I sell it to a NZer or non NZer. And no right to reside or vote transfers with the shares. So it's all a bit more complex than the slogans being chucked around IMO.
PS I've never read Rand. Everything the Libz say about her makes her sound bathit crazy.
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
A couple of things. Electricity is not a one way guaranteed bet or without risk (and the risk issue tends t be forgotten). The risk is often low though making it a solid rather than spectacular investment. If the returns were that spectacular you;d see every man and his dog lining up to build power stations, but you don't. ASsets are usually very expensive up front and need big reinvestment at times - Look at the discussion about Huntly. So they are not costless and should not be seen as revenue generators only. This is not a facebook IPO.
As for holding up investment, Genesis announced this week the deferral of a major wind farm because demand was not there.
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
Well it's not giving it away for a start. If I own it but move permanently to Australia have I given it away to Australia? If it's my property, 'NZ' has no ownership of it - I do irrespective of my passport or where I live.
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
You need to go to the MED data file 2011 for both, but the respective numbers are 32.6GWh and 39GWh if you want to check my maths.
POwer prices increase because the cost of power generation can change. No-one is going to build a power station if they won't get a return so effectively prices need to rise to cover that cost and the next power station is usually more expensive than the last, the cost of fuel can change, 40% of your bill is lines charges and we are in the middle of a $3b or so upgrade of the national grid. It all adds up. Your way would be even more expensive because you would have a bunch of power stations sitting idle not earning money just in case. So to encourage economic growth you would effectively overcharge for energy. Not sure that works.
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
"it means giving away a little piece of the ownership of NZ every time"
What a strange concept. If I sell my business, NZ has no 'ownership' of it. Only I do. How is that giving away the 'ownership of NZ' if I happen to sell it to a foreigner?
-
Hard News: Unwarranted risk, in reply to BenWilson,
@ Ben
Well the numbers are more impressive than that, but apologies in advance if they underwhelm you. We had 7860MW in 98 and in 2010 we had 9667MW so that's more like a 23% increase, comfortably ahead of demand over the same period of 20%. What would you prefer: we build power stations for the hell of it just in case? How much do you think that will cost on your power bill?