Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Michael Cullen has proven to be a very capable Minister of Finance. As Keith pointed out, a national saving scheme is sound macro-economic policy, quite apart from the benefits that will accrue to individuals.
Unfortunately, if the overseas ownership horse has not already bolted, it is certainly running for the gate. Repatriated profits now represent a significant lost opportunity for our economy. This is why we should encourage government to provide SOE competition in key sectors (ala Kiwibank) if outright government ownership is not practical. Boo to Roger Douglas.
-
Nice work Keith.
I suppose a standard economic analysis says that in the long run the employer contribution will be borne by employees. Cullen mentioned he expected the cost of Kiwisaver would be factored into wage bargaining, and I suppose this is what he meant.
On the other hand, a national savings scheme is designed to increase long run national income by changing long run investment patterns. So although Kiwisaver may reduce disposable income in the short/medium term, changes to investment patterns may mitigate this effect by helping to increase domestic incomes at a faster rate than would otherwise have been the case (through increased domestic investment and via the balance of payments).
But as you pointed out in an earlier post, our housing market requires urgent attention. Not only is it interfering with our productive sector by distorting our interest and exchange rates, it is transferring money from the poor to the rich and from New Zealanders to the shareholders of overseas banks. This might have been thought to be the more pressing concern.
-
Winston Peters is a strange cat. I remember him during the 90's talking about export led recoveries, the Phillips Curve trade off, national savings rates, and how we should try to emulate what were then known as the Asian Tiger economies.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1486206.htm
WINSTON PETERS: My experience of Asian leadership is that their intelligence, their comprehension of Western politics is far deeper than many of us would admit. It's far more knowledgeable and they would be totally understanding of it, excepting when I was in China - if I was in China - I would not, as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, be making any comment on the Government's position [on the merit of a free trade deal with China] because that's the job of the Minister for Trade.
-
But I have to observe that I find it hard to believe that people with zero knowledge of our judicial, political and social culture automatically make better calls than people who actually live here
Its an interesting debate. Our legal fraternity has a lot of respect for the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Privy Council, and I wouldn't characterise this as cultural cringe. Its part of what makes the PC's finding that a "miscarriage of justice" occurred in this case so interesting.
-
I always liked Tony Blair. He always came across better than his detractors, although in many cases this wasn't saying much.
-
Society already intervenes in the interests of children - as it bloody well should. This just lowers the bar so that people can't thrash their kids and have a defence for that.
If that is all that this bill did we would not be arguing about it. I think everyone knows the true scope of what Bradford is trying to achieve.
Okay, I've said enough. Love your work Russell.
-
I don't really understand your objection to what Simon Barnett has said, Russell. He simply wants to raise his children without interference from those who would make him a criminal or some sort of social pariah. It ain't really that unreasonable - he's just asking you to leave him alone.
I've seldom seen more disingenuous advocacy than that shown by the supporters of this legislation. The truth is that any competent lawyer could have redrafted s.59 to effect the change that most people agreed was necessary.
So yeah, I am not happy that Bradford's controversial and self-righteous intuitions about smacking are to prevail over the beliefs of rest of the community. The sky might not be falling, but I doubt I'm alone in being really unimpressed by what has happened here.
-
Just saw Lordgod Tamaki on 'Campbell Live'
Another good reason to watch Mark Sainsbury on CloseUp instead. If you had, you may have seen Simon Barnett make a far more persuasive case.
-
One of the interesting similarities between Tariana Turia and d4j is that each speaks for an particularly unattractive and embittered part of public opinion. I hope you both find the comparison offensive.
-
Our efforts to solve the problem have instead created a counterproductive vicious circle.
Yeah. What really grinds my gears is that this problem is not being addressed in any sensible way.
Its like the people who designed our natural monopoly ownership structures thought they'd have a go at real estate.