Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Paul Williams - I'm certainly no expert either. I suppose that the main priority for public procurement should be value for money. If PPP's can deliver the same goods and services at a lower cost then they are hard to oppose, notwithstanding the instances in which value for money does not appear to have been obtained. Presumably with planning there can be an appropriate allocation of legal and financial risk. On the other hand, government contracts seem to be regarded as lucrative (at least anecdotally).
National seemed to blissfully disregard the risks of its market-orientated reforms last term. I wonder whether Key/English are as pragmatic as their pitch would suggest or whether they are simply new faces for a familiar agenda.
-
@Paul Williams - I think my reply to you the Key(nesian) thread may have been eaten by the interweb, but I enjoyed reading your thoughts on PPP's.
-
if you had higher aspirations for our country you wouldn't write things like this david. what goes on between candidate and fish is frankly none of your concern.
-
I'm not sure that Key can meaningfully be described as a Keynesian on the basis of his speech to the conference, except to the extent that we all might be described as Keynesians now.
The emphasis on infrastructure is hard to dislike, but that doesn't make him a Keynesian.
-
i agree that klein uses examples and arguments that should not be discounted simply because the narrative in which she includes them is unpersuasive. i had a flip through her new book recently, the research was interesting notwithstanding the cherrypicking that helps create the book's apocalyptic feel.
no logo is worth reading. i remembered the book when i saw $B300 nike's being offered with a pay-by-instalment plan in rio de janeiro.
-
The wise cynics amongst us [e.g. LegBreak], amongst us will gladly point out that Obama is full of platitudes, etc. Well, whatever: he is an order of magnitude better than anyone else on offer. He is an intelligent, articulate and sincere person. We need him. Plain and simple.
I was going to say that speeches are probably not the place to be looking for hard truths and finer detail, but then I remembered how strong on content some of his others have been. The NY Times reports that Obama has 300 foreign policy specialists advising his campaign (a figure that seems almost comically high) so presumbly there is substance behind the theatre.
Despite the occassional inevitable mistake Obama has shown good political instincts, right down to the savvy (although sometimes a little CW) positioning in Audacity. Electoral-vote.com has him way in front, but many of the key states remain close.
-
There are all sorts of things none of us 100% know about other people, since mind-reading is fairly uncommon. So, instead of inventing mind-reading, which might take a while and get expensive, we tend to do other stuff. Like... analyse what they say and what they do. It's admittedly an imperfect system.
I don't think you have enough information to draw a reliable inference, and don't accept the conclusion of your analysis, if that is the word you want to use to describe what you have embarked on here.
Let's agree to disagree on this one aspect of a broad discussion.
-
We were analysing his words and actions, not his 'demeanour'
You don't know whether he is sorry or not.
-
My guess is that it was due to the public statements of regret afterwards that seemed so devoid of any … regret.
My understanding of the evidence in this area is that demeanour based assesments of credibility can be unreliable.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/Supreme_Court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_mcclellan020806
A US study published earlier this year noted that “the results of over 25 years of research on this topic show that lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour is not only limited in scope but also highly inaccurate.
-
Not OK means Not OK. You're the one who isn't getting that.
One of us is confused about who is not getting what.