Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I have a theory that interest in the America's Cup is inversely proportional to actual sailing experience. It seems to just be a national victory ritual that could as easily be enacted over Formula One, tiddlywinks or cane toad racing.
I'm pretty excited by it, having sailed a fair few different small yachts. It's almost been enough to get me back on the water (Dad and I stopped sailing about 15 years ago - you can only have one captain on a boat).
As for its role as a Government funded technology demonstrator: sure, why not? We're not going to invest in a space-race, we don't develop conventional weapons of mass destruction that fly around the world, and attempts to have wheeled vehicles go round in circles quickly haven't succeeded that often in recent decades. That this huge construction of carbon-fibre literally levitates while careering forward at above 80km/h gives it even more of a boost.
I'm no expert in this area, but I hope the Government is working with the sector to help them transfer their knowledge and skills to markets around the world. The tragedy would be if this isn't occurring.
-
Miley Cyrus riding demolition equipment naked, that’s sexualisation.
Lorde, yeah nah.
Sweetman’s given it a go and wreaked his terrible taste in music on NZ for quite a while now. Time to hang up the keyboard.
-
“Given the many benefits of this initiative, it is important that the economics of the project remain in place for the Government’s partners, that investment is supported throughout the duration of the build and the transition to fibre is supported so consumers get savings and wider benefits.”
The entire Chorus statement can be summarised as follows: "Broadband is good. We're unwilling to take a loss on the commercial agreement we negotiated."
-
For me the most important consideration is the difficult-to-quantify benefits to other parts of the economy which are foregone as higher costs introduce friction in the movement of information. These benefits go much wider than the tech industry, and their loss is hugely disappointing. But because they largely accrue to future business and personal activity, they don’t have the benefit of incumbency.
A similar tradeoff is seen in the case of Rio Tinto, where a large employer with concentrated interests was able to see off the economic activity and job-creation that would have occurred with cheaper renewable electricity to every other business in the country.
Documents released this afternoon show Treasury advised last July that a bail out should be rejected because it would “would result in a significant transfer of value from New Zealanders to [owners] PA [Pacific Aluminium] and Rio Tinto shareholders”.
The amount of the value transfer has been withheld. Also redacted from the papers are the company’s original demands
Andrea Vance, Treasury cautions against Tiwai sweetener
-
Also on the same day as the announcement, Prime Minister John Key said he would not rule out fresh legislation to overcome a [Commerce Commission] decision he said was "problematic".
From Hamish Rutherford's article on the subject. In usual circumstances, this statement would be extraordinary. That the PM is so confident he has the ability to reshape the market to void a contractual obligation says something incredible.
If you actually showed some solid principles, Cam, instead of fawning over the National Party’s every utterance
Cameron's someone with principles and beliefs. It's sometimes difficult to fathom where they lie, but on a range of issues he comes out punching against National MPs, ministers, local body politicians, and affiliated individuals. Let's not make this about a person, let's discuss the sheer outrage of the position he's trying to defend.
-
The Government’s position on this is incomprehensible if it is indeed a Government for an open and free market in which all players are equal under regulation (however heavy or light that may be).
If that assumption is relaxed and it is instead assumed that this Government is partial to pressure, friendships, political considerations, and a heightened sense of self-confidence that leads Ministers to pick winners, then the decisions they have made become much more explicable. Under that decision-making framework, their decision to prioritise the profits of one business over those of others, and over the direct and benefits that would accrue to hundreds of thousands of businesses and millions of New Zealanders is almost logical.
That gap between open and guided markets is increasingly obvious to our political class, as it is exhibited in a range of fields (tech, gambling, energy, agriculture, transport). It’s also becoming apparent to business.
-
If Psy gets $1 million from 1 billion plays, does that mean the artist who gets 100,000 plays gets $100. In which case, 89,402 plays is not quite equivalent to an evening performing at a pub?
I'm not dissing the system, but I wonder if we won't work out better ones at some future point in this digital age.
-
Hard News: Jonesing, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Unless Robertson gets the nod, in which case the danger is the war between his power base of aging neo-liberal museum pieces in caucus and the largely Auckland based R&F will simply re-ignite after a few months.
And there's the rub, isn't it? Being an outsider, I rely on hearsay, but I'm led to believe that the membership skews strongly Auckland and strongly Pacific, with reasonable contingents of 'old-time' members who skew socialist, and youth who are very socially liberal. Union delegates are usually pragmatic working people, but they tend to be well to the left of the average New Zealander.
This is an exercise in capturing their affections.
-
And to add:
The willful, almost playful ignorance of the dynamics of this situation - this is a closed primary performed for the benefit of the members and several hundred union delegate - is something to behold. For once, the men with microphones aren't the most important people in the room. But that hasn't stopped them openly pretending otherwise.
That's what's so harmful about the way in which Jones has sought to flout the soft conventions established by his counterparts and the membership. It isn't strongly offensive, but it's sufficiently so to drive membership against him.
-
This is a new thing in New Zealand politics, isn't it? I can't recall any previous in which the contenders for leadership of a political party engaged in a process which was so public.
In this case, it's deliberate - Moira Coatsworth and Tim Barnett have seen the party's open discontent with Wellington horse-trading, and demanded democracy and use of the process they worked through their conference last year. That's a manifestation of the age and the expectation of democracy in all processes, but it's hardly sui generis. It is almost certainly influenced by the confidence with which the Greens have been able to support their party-elected leaders.
If this exercise is successful, it's hard to imagine that National will not be forced to incorporate elements of it into the next selection process they undertake, even if it is carefully stagemanaged. What it has done for Labour is given them an open platform from which to begin the 2014 election campaign. The invigoration of members, the mobilisation, the flood of emotional associations, and their affects on the party's challenged financial situation are all likely to be highly positive. When we put that beside the large scale membership and volunteer mobilisation opportunity afforded by the asset sales referendum, they're once again in a strong position, if they make good on it.