Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How a thing happens, in reply to ,
What would be the advantage of using G3 instead of FM?
Not limited to a specific spectrum and better quality spring to mind. Also cost of broadcast - not having to pay for access to the FM spectrum would remove a barrier to entry.
I'm not a radio geek so I'm sure there are others.
-
We need a sad kind of PAS law where no matter how vile the cops actions are Matthew Poole will defend them to the death.
-
Hard News: Cannabis: The Experiment is Real, in reply to Russell Brown,
Temptations to which the people already selling it are not prey?
Exactly. It's going to be sold no matter what. If it's legalised at least the sale can be regulated; who it's sold to, where etc.
I'd rather it sold in a commercial zone to people with identification proving they're over 18 than at a tinny house next to my place selling it to anyone who has the cash.
-
Hard News: Movie Disaster, in reply to Sacha,
Or against, you guessed it, a house.
True that's the most common thing. And that's what makes it such a vicious circle. House prices need to drop but they can't as it would involve so much more than homeowners' precious equity; it could potentially lead to a chain of business failures as banks withdraw lending to businesses if equity in the secured houses drop. And of course when one business fails then it flows on and many more fail due to the failed businesses not paying their debts.
This means that any concrete effort to actually lower house prices risks an economic crisis. Banks know this so banks don't fear government policy leading to lower houses and thus see a house as prime security. And since banks see a house as prime security the demand for them increases as does the price.
-
Hard News: Movie Disaster, in reply to Sacha,
Not quite. While banks like equity in the form of a house. Many businesses also borrow from banks - usually against plant/stock or even the accounts receivable ledger. But businesses do obtain credit from banks - usually not venture capital but that's a different story.
-
Hard News: The Future of Television, in reply to Dylan Reeve,
Agree with everything you said. General broadcast TV - I 'watch' either reading a book or browsing on my laptop/iPad/smart phone. It just doesn't interest me enough to have my sole attention - or sometimes it does but then an ad comes on and there's no way I'm going to sit and watch ads for three minutes so I pick up whatever device/book is closest to me ...
And as you point out content I've specifically chosen such as GoT or Breaking Bad I will sit and watch without interruption but then again there are no ads. So I'm not sure if it's the ads that cause me to two-screen or the nature of the content. I think it's a bit of both really, no matter how compelling the content I will dual-screen if there are ads. If the content has no ads but isn't that compelling I will also dual-screen.
For something to have my sole, undivided attention it has to be both ad-free and highly interesting.
-
Hard News: Movie Disaster, in reply to SteveH,
The film/TV jobs are (partly) funded by overseas investment. You're suggesting it won't hurt balance of payments if it's replaced by import-substitution work, but if that's funded by local investment then it must be at cost of that money going to other local workers. That's where the increase in unemployment would occur.
Possibly but also possibly not. The investment is likely to come from banks which largely source their capital off-shore.
Having to prop up the industry periodically isn't necessarily a bad thing if the overall benefit outweighs the cost of doing so.
If the evidence of the benefit outweighing the cost is clear I'd accept that. At present the evidence is far from clear at best.
-
Hard News: Movie Disaster, in reply to SteveH,
What would the import-substitution good be for a set builder? Assuming there is one, the net result would be a slightly smaller economy with lower imports and exports, and slightly increased unemployment right?
Not sure - working off the premise that the 40k worker has a 35k job. I didn't come up with the example but odds are they would get another job.
Following the assumption there would be lower imports and exports but shouldn't be slightly increased unemployment. You can have an economy with a high percentage of exports and yet still have high unemployment (imagine oil for example). Or you can have an economy that exports little, imports little and has high employment as nearly everything gets produced locally.
I'm all in favour of trade. I just don't think that the film industry should get special treatment because it brings in export dollars. An industry that produces a good/service we would otherwise import is just as valuable.
Coming back to the main point in the post, I just can't see it as good policy to prop up the industry. If we do it'll only need another prop in awhile and as others have mentioned it will just be a race to the bottom with every country out-bidding each other and the film studios winning.
If we want to do it on cultural grounds then that's fine, I just don't think the economic grounds add up.
-
Hard News: Movie Disaster, in reply to SteveH,
That's only true if the $35k per year job is also paid by foreign investment.
What about if the $35k is producing an income-substitution good/service?
This is the problem I have with the sole-focus being on exports. Goods or services that substitute an import are just as good in that they then free up the foreign currency to purchase other imports in the same way as exports bring foreign currency in.
A manufacturer whose goods are solely sold domestically can be just as valuable as an exporter if it's the case that if they weren't to exist that all those goods would be imported.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
There’s nothing sure about it, Matt. And I'd be damn certain both he and Councillor Cathy Casey would take an extremely dim view of a right-wing columnist insinuating he'd exploited the "implied obligations" of his relationship with his ex-partner.
That must be the first time Matt McCarten has been described as right-wing :) Agree with your point though.