Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I did a detailed survey of the academic literature (~700 papers) on NZ's relations with the Pacific a few weeks ago, and it's come in handy.
McCully just doesn't seem to get it.
Not only would politicising aid mean less chance to tackle the causes of suffering, but it is also bad politics.
Murray McCully does not seem to realise, but the Pacific Island states feel bullied already by some of the actions of New Zealand and Australia, and advice from these countries on how to conduct their affairs has come in way that has been seen more as a directive than as friendly help. Thankfully, MFAT, Goff and Clark have realised this, and have mainly applied a softer hand, excepting Fiji’s regime.
The rhetoric that McCully is spouting about being able to force Pacific hands on issues by using aid as a blunt instrument is quite disturbing. Pacific nations aren’t likely to respond well to this kind of approach, from the academic literature I’ve read that examines how these countries actually feel about NZ and Australia’s role in the Pacific. McCully seems to have no idea that NZ’s position in the Pacific comes as much from relationships and it’s Pacific immigrant community as it does from being a regional power. These are smart and proud people, and deserve our respect.
To do otherwise is cede the Pacific to China, which is greatly increasing its aid delivery (and Taiwan to a lesser extent), and is doing so in ways that leaders of these countries are quite comfortable with. Tonga, for example, is now well out of the sway of New Zealand, despite longstanding ties - which they're entitled to of course, but it is only with careful work
I've just realised however, perhaps this is what McCully wants; a China like approach, designed to fatten the wallets of politicians and introduce long-term corruption and instability, in an attempt for short-term favour. Is he really in favour of such an approach?
Perhaps they think that they can have the best of both worlds, in a savvy politically aware MFAT that curries favour and influence while bringing up economies. I'm sure that in his minds eye there is a coherent vision of what NZ's aid contribution should be. That it doesn't seem to match what development practitioners have to say, or that there has been absolutely no attempt at consultation speaks that it probably has no resemblance to what works.
It is also a bad move politically in the rest of the world. NZ’s aid goes to a large number of countries. NZ’s contribution to Indonesia, the world’s fourth largest country, is not huge, being around $14 million, and directed to a small number of programs, but I know that it is noticed and appreciated. Developing countries are by their nature growing in economic terms, and growing in influence. Aid forms an important part of bilateral relations, and to lose this in order to try and shape the Pacific is an incredibly shortsighted and naive.
Unless they're planning to increase the aid budget substantially... let me know when that happens, will you?
Not only will these changes have harmful effects to alleviating suffering if they come about, they are likely to harm rather than help McCully’s vision of a New Zealand with regional clout. And that is doubly stupid.
-
Has anyone seen my kitten?
You better hope he's not huffing it. It may be too late.
-
Damn! I was going to link to that tomorrow!
You still should. I saw that quote on one of the blogs this morning too.
This has been a thread of near-poetic cynicism ...
In the end years of the Labour Government, I felt that no matter what argument I presented to the Government, ones they could be sympathetic to in other times, they'd carry on their pre-ordained agenda. It didn't make a difference to them.
I already feel that way about the present one.
-
It's Santa Cthulhu, you vile blasphemer.
I thought you were the Grinch who stole Christmas.
All hail Cthulhu.
-
Even when Damian Christie mentioned later that he had a gig with "the new Paul Holmes show" I didn't twig.
No sane person would have heard that comment and thought he was referring to the replacement for Agenda.
-
I should say that I was stung by the .49 dollar this morning to the tune of a few hundred dollars, so I'm more than a little personally interested in the matter.
-
George, how do you suggest we set the rate for the NZ currency? By government fiat, with the rate determined by whether farmers or Mac buyers currently have the ear of government?
I'm suggesting no such thing. It was before my time, but I have a strong impression of the postwar and Muldoon era, and how that caused a great deal of frustration and hardship.
I do think however that the Government could impose limits on very large transactions. A large company converting (say) over $1million would simply have to register the transaction with the Government, and this could be done in a non-intrusive way. Those who do this commercially for companies would have no problems, but those who simply gamble money (as they do quite openly and obviously now) would find themselves shut out. No system is perfect, and there might be some issues to be resolved in my proposal, but I stand by my statement that the current system harms the NZ economy, perhaps significantly.
Given that NZ is run by a currency trader at the moment, I don't think that we're likely to see this given any serious consideration before 2011, but opposition parties should consider it.
-
Can we ban the currency speculators already? I'm actually quite serious about this.
The dollar bounces unpredictably in a USD .40 - .85 range and it hurts the economy in serious ways. Exporters and importers can't plan ahead properly (unless they're able to hedge currency - another expense, and one that's difficult for small businesses). It means that people are more cautious about investing, because what they're about to spend on might suddenly become dramatically cheaper or more expensive, and they would have wasted large amounts of money.
The NZD is one of the 12 most traded currencies in the world - far in excess of the size of NZ economically. Basically, rich men are using our dollar to make money. And we pay the price.
-
There's been talk above about how Sky City and casinos are just harmless fun. You pays your money, you haves your fun, and you walk out at the end of the night.
I don't think that the pokies, and the rest of Sky City would be much of a moral hazard if there weren't real consequences however. That is real money that people are handing over, and for too many it is the loss of money that means suffering in other areas of their lives. And that, essentially is the problem. Hundreds of dollars. You'd have to drink a lot of alcohol, or start taking regular hits of P to get that far into your finances - and society would recognise that as a problem.
The problem for Sky City and the places that rely on pokies is that their entire business model revolves around people spending lots of money - if they ran things so people felt good after only spending $20-30 they'd go bankrupt. Compare that to a bar, where most people are having a good time after spending the same amount, and there is no comparison.
This isn't about wowserism. This is about the fact that there's comparatively so little pleasure derived for such a lot of social harm.
-
I don't think the Prime Minister has gone far enough. These are radical times, and we are a nation of DOers.
I want him to suggest a 2 day working week, with the other 3 days paid for by the Government. That way, we could reduce productive capacity and no-one would be worse off.
It takes a bold man to say these things. And that man is John Key. Can you imagine Helen Clark introducing the 2 day working week, for example? There is no comparison.