Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm beginning to wonder if the title to this thread was not sarcastic. No one does actually want to talk about the economy. I guess we leave it to the Nats to work out then, eh?
-
The most depressing thing to me about this depression for NZ is that right now is exactly when the entire nation needs to be getting real about what the hell are we going to do. But unfortunately the way our elections work, the exact opposite has happened, the nation goes into 'defend the tribe' mode and everything has focused on looking at how to blame everything on the other tribes. I see it as a major failing of our adversarial focused system.
There are 2 main question divisions: External and internal. How we manage our internal economy is going to be very important to the comfort of NZers over the next few years. And what is going to happen to the external economy, and what can NZ do about it?
Ordinarily, when times are good, I can't give a crap about economics. I tend to vote on social issues. I figure that the economic differences between the big parties are minor, that we can flip between slightly different styles of economic management and not notice the difference. That's 'people like me' of course, who are not reliant on benefits and don't have the opportunity to avoid much tax, and who do use services that could be provided publicly or privately. 'People unlike me' who are either poor or rich, are much more affected by the different styles, so I feel it's safe to leave it to them to give a crap about it.
But now is not one of those times. It seems to me that you have to pick a clear strategy - a strategy of taking 2 contrasting strategies and running the middle line, is a bad strategy.
Internally I see 2 main strategies. Either the government tries to make up for the shortfall in international demand by creating local demand, or it pulls back completely and just tries to be a miser to ride the bad times out. You can't do both.
The first strategy carries with it the hope that we could actually ride the depression out without too much suffering. It is a socialist strategy. What suffering there is will be shared.
The second strategy abandons that hope as hopeless. It premises itself on the idea that the first strategy can only lead to a deeper depression, that it can only delay the inevitable reckoning. It therefore seeks to take what is still good about the economy and make it work, and cut the rest loose. If it has a grand vision, that vision is that the depression will somehow be shortened by this kind of 'discipline'.
I'm looking very big picture here. The exact details of how an active government can stimulate internal demand have many many angles. Should they spend money, just to churn the money around? Or should they let people have more money via tax cuts, to do the same thing? Which would work better?
Then there are the external economic questions, which are driving the entire mess. A worldwide slump is leading to reduced demand for exported goods (and local goods too, I guess). Can anything NZ does help here? Can we try holding our dollar down? We're already very unrestricted in our trade. Should we be trying to control capital flows more? Should we be stockpiling reserves? I really don't know the answer. Everything seems risky to me. Do we have to just suck on it? That seems to be the consensus between the big parties. It's probably realistic, IMHO.
Speaking personally, my answer to the depression is to tighten and save. Pay off debt. But I don't think that is good for the economy. That's not putting money into any other NZers pocket. All the small traders will suffer the most, as the tightening applies first to all luxuries. I will not, for instance, buy a fancy HD entertainment system this year, which means some retailer loses out, and they won't get to spend the money they would have made from me on anything else, and so on all through the economy.Which is what makes me think that Kiwisaver is NOT going to help NZ through this crisis. It seems like a really good idea for every individual who joins up with it, and in many ways a very bad idea if everyone joins into it. Capitalism can't have everyone being rich, with huge savings, it just won't work like that.
Tax cuts seem to be the same. Most of them will just be plowed into savings of various kinds. Which will benefit the individuals and hurt the system (hurting the individuals in the process, some much more than others).
-
Which lead to stupid scenes where the undead did nothing for 5 minutes while Legolas killed 20 guys and the giant elephant they were riding on, and then the undead overran the whole city in 5 seconds flat.
C'mon the elephant scene was good fun. Legolas' answer to Gimli beating him by one orc at Helm's Deep.
I was making the point where the extended edition explained it, and the theatrical cut did not. They just kinda turned up and kicked ass deus ex styles.
Believe it or not, that's pretty much how it worked in the book. The entire explanation of how that happened is told as a tale by Gimli to Merry and Pippin afterward. Tolkien had built the moment up very much the way Jackson did. But Jackson (rightly, I think) didn't mess with chronology like that, too hard in a movie. It is probably the dramatic climax of the 5th book (first half of Return of the King), set with Eomer surrounded, Theoden dead, Minas Tirith finally breached, Frodo captured, Aragorn lost in the Paths of the Dead, Denethor committing suicide, Eowyn and Merry apparently dead after defeating the Witch King. Tolkien changes his metre at about that time, into a formal style used for the first time, and the battle is told like a fairy tale. The change of the wind, and the miraculous arrival of Aragorn are meant to be bewildering and wonderful gifts from heaven.
-
Paul, AFL definitely reaches out to women more. The tight short pants and shirts are deliberately kept that way for a reason. It's also a game involving a lot less brawn than either rugby code. The rules are simple, and the play fast. It's a good game all right. It's just not my game.
Curiously my ozzie friends also think it's more dangerous than rugby, on account of the fact there's no offside. You have no idea which direction you will be tackled from, and you're usually flying through the air at the time.
Surely as a Union fan, it's allowed for you to just support a Kiwi team? Or, to use some more local parlance, will people crack the shits about that?
-
Having not read the book ... so where the hell did those skeleton guys comes from in LOTR 3?
I think Kyle won the right to answer that question. My guess is that most of them came from NZ.
-
And for my money the extended versions of LOTR improved the films considerably.
Agreed. They also extended the films considerably. But they will probably be an exception to the rule, since they were able to take for granted right from the outset that the interest in an extended addition would be large, and really filmed the whole thing for the extended addition, then cut it down for the cinema.
Kyle
What do I win?
Heh, surely the experience itself was enough of a win?
-
Paul, I'd say more so with impunity having lived in NZ and Melbourne. In Melb, it was pretty much not allowed to not support a footy team. I picked one quite arbitrarily just to avoid the annoying arguments people would always pick with you if you didn't support one. In the same spirit as fobbing off Christians at the door by claiming some other religion. Don't EVER say you're an atheist unless you like talking to Christians at the door a lot. Don't EVER say you don't watch footy in Victoria, or there will be a press gang to convert you to their team every other minute.
I'm not sure why it's so. I think the Club-ness lends itself to fanaticism far more than regionally based teams can. Because a club really doesn't represent anything, it's much easier to become irrationally attached to it.
-
Yeah, a commentary can be to a good movie what golf is to a good walk.
-
The cast one was the least informative, but if you were a fanboy/girl, entertaining.
I generally agree. It depends on what it is you wish to be informed about. If you want to know how the actors thought and what they had to do, then that was quite informative. If you wanted to see exactly how they made the sets, then the design team one would be your pick. Being a fanboy, the cast entertained me the most.
Having listened to all four, it was too much
You reckon? That's 12x4 = 48 hours of commentary, and 4 complete rewatchings of a 12 hour long movie. How could that possibly satisfy anyone? Did you also watch the extended credits?
Heh, I only made it through 2 of the commentaries. Your insanity surpasses mine totally.
-
The weirdest commentary prize goes to Blade Runner, in which the actor's commentary was added in for the theatrical release, then removed for the director's cut.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 926 927 928 929 930 … 1066 Older→ First