A week of polls

70 comments on “A week of polls ”

• Comments are now closed

1. duncan garner 1

   3 October 2011 at 8:51 am

   Anthony,

   I have passed on your concerns over that headline to our guys who run our 3news.co.nz website -they will sort it.

   Cheers
   Duncan
   • r0b 1.1

     3 October 2011 at 9:32 am

     Cheers Duncan – thanks for stopping by…

     Anthony 
   • Kevin Welsh 1.2

     3 October 2011 at 10:00 am

     Any more little gems like that waiting in the wings Duncan?

     For $40-odd million, I would be expecting a lot more than that…
     • Scotty 1.2.1

       3 October 2011 at 10:55 am

       But wait theres more,for just $40mil you can have the
       Radio Live news editor choose to ignore the the fact that National only received 16% support in the Digipoll but repeat hourly the fact that Phil Goffs’ support as Labour leader in the same poll is less than 50%.
       • Tigger 1.2.1.1

         3 October 2011 at 1:04 pm

         Well there was that whole free hour Key got on Radio Live last Friday.
   • Deadly_NZ 1.3

     3 October 2011 at 4:54 pm

     After watching months and months of you kissing John Key’s arse do you really expect me to believe you have changed, you and your mate plonker are a pair of NACT trolls. And a leopard NEVER changes it’s spots!!!!! I watch the news on 3 and shake my head in disbelief . And the 40 million bucks of TAX Payers cash lets me call you out as a bullshit artist of the first water. And don’t get me started on the one sided political sycophancy that comes out of TV3, You are obviously Not a journalist as A journalist has to be IMPARTIAL. A word you obviously have no idea what it means.
2. Joe Bloggs 2

   3 October 2011 at 9:01 am

   Seriously r0b, this is not gooking positive for the minor parties. If the TVNZ and TV3 trend is confirmed in November then the future is looking particularly gloomy for Labour.

   Are voters reacting to continuing leadership woes at Labour? Is it the lack of sound policy on the economy? Brown’s botched RWC opening? The bizarre attack on Bryce Edwards? Your guess is as good as mine.

   But factor in some extra abuse of the Butch, more head-in-the-sand behaviour from Goff and a thoughless outburst or two from Trevor Mallard, and who knows what next month’s polls will be showing.

   There’s only one poll that really counts though and that poll is not for another seven weeks. My money, in the absence of credible opposition, is on National being able to govern alone.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.1

     3 October 2011 at 9:20 am

     Nothing has changed for 2 1/2 years in these numbers- don’t you think you are being a little over-analytical here?

     In short people have a fixed view of the parties or leaders. Labour is pro-government, National is for less government (ironically the reality is completely different from the perception BTW). At the moment people don’t trust government.

     At some stage each party’s image will reach a tipping point- who knows when that be.
   • mickysavage 2.2

     3 October 2011 at 9:20 am

     The 2002 effect will kick in after the world cup.  Voters will see that National has too much power and share the power around.  I expect the third parties to pick up although Act and the Coiffured one are toast.
      
     Also this campaign presents the perfect opportunity for Key to blow it.  He will be on level pegging with Goff in terms of debates and exposure and as long as the MSM does its job there will be a chance.
      
     Campaigns are funny things.  My impression is that turnout is going to be very important for Labour and National is one slip up away from a close campaign.
     • wobble 2.2.1

       3 October 2011 at 9:23 am

       The 2002 effect would be rather dire for Labour. But yes, you’re probably right.
       • mickysavage 2.2.1.1

         3 October 2011 at 10:58 am

         Spoken like someone with no understanding of the parties. 
          
         In 2002 National was comatose.  They had as their campaign manage Michelle Boag.  They had no money and were hopelessly split down the middle.
          
         Labour is not in that sort of shape at all.  Money, like always, is not the best but activist determination is high and there is this realisation that the Government support may be wide but it is very shallow.
          
         It aint over yet.  Kiwis do have a democratic say in their future.
          
         • The Baron 2.2.1.1.1

           3 October 2011 at 11:15 am

           Greg,
           I think he understands plenty. Your often confuse your blind loyalties with insights – but the parallels couldn’t be clearer:
           – Mallard is 2011’s Boag – running a frankly bizarre strategy that is not gaining traction.
           – National is about a billion fuck ups away from losing – just as Labour was in 2002. Why? It’s really super simple – the vast majority of NZ voters prefer Govt’s to give Govt’s more than one term. Labour lost the last election in no small part because the public was sick of them – again, just like the Nats in 1999. It’s almost as inevitable as the tides.
           – And finally, Labour has done absolutely nothing to win the election – or at least nothing that has registered. meanwhile, the Greens and other minor parties have. Probably a factor of the “anyone but Labour” I mention above; and/or the hapless campaign that Mallard is running.
           Greg, your analysis not only lacks an understanding of the parties; it lacks simple logic. I know where it comes from due to your excessive level of affiliation. But I do wish you wouldn’t put yourself forward as such a savant on these issues when all you spout is this loyalist dribble.
         • mik e 2.2.1.1.2

           3 October 2011 at 10:02 pm

           Boag mucked up big time by not emphasizing party vote. Claimed on Moras show today she wasn’t doing anything back then Edwards dig surely not Boags reply running my little company.
     • Zaphod Beeblebrox 2.2.2

       3 October 2011 at 9:33 am

       Remember with such low numbers, the margin for error for those minor party figures are huge. So how do you know ACT or MP is losing support? How could you know?

       Compared with the US and Australia, the methodology and analysis of some of these polls is dubious. In the US they talk about registered and likely voters. How for instance can a pollster know if someone they talk to is even going to be bothered turning up to vote? How could you measure someones enthusiasm to vote? You’d think for a party like Labour this would be the critical factor
3. James Murray 3

   3 October 2011 at 9:07 am

   This has now been corrected. Apologies for the confusion.

   James Murray – chief editor 3news.co.nz
   • r0b 3.1

     3 October 2011 at 9:42 am

     Thanks James.  Hey next time could you arrange it for Labour and Nats poll ratings to be reversed? That would be grand!

     Cheers
     Anthony 
   • Kevin Welsh 3.2

     3 October 2011 at 9:59 am

     More importantly James. How does a fuck-up like that happen? It seems editorial oversight and proof reading have gone the way of fact-based reporting and dinosaurs.

     Bomber summed it up perfectly and I hope he does not mind me quoting him here:
     “The mainstream media are so biased towards the National Party that John Key could punch a puppy in the face live on Close Up, and the Herald editorial the next day would criticize the puppy for flinching.”
   • Akldnut 3.3

     3 October 2011 at 11:12 am

     James how about putting out a retraction and apology for misleading information – every radio news update I’ve listened to this morning was running with it.

     Even with your correcting the above and a retraction this is a good case of media subconsious manipulation.
4. ak 4

   3 October 2011 at 10:05 am

   Sloppy from TVNZ too. Preference is not remotely the same as “popularity”. For example, I prefer reading Joe Bloggs’ comments to eating dog crap. But only just. And I certainly wouldn’t vote for him.

   The oldie tories I talk to regularly are regularly somewhat embarrassed by the Mincer’s latest antics and lack of gravitas, but if pressed will come back with “yes he acts the goat but he’s smarter than he looks. He knows money, and that’s what we need right now.”

   We’ll see, but methinks the Double Downgrade might go harder to the groin of that “popularity” than first thought. Our economic emperor’s pants are around his ankles. Rip into it boots n all, Labour.
5. Puddleglum 5

   3 October 2011 at 10:17 am

   There’s an interesting discussion of the Marae Digipoll here. 
6. duncan garner 6

   3 October 2011 at 10:21 am

   Note to Kevin Welsh,

   For a start Kevin it wasn’t my mistake, it was made by someone on our website, but it has been fixed. James did it straight away after it was bought to his attention.

   What else do you want? Off with someone’s head? Linked to $40 odd million? Get real Kevin.

   And if you want to go quoting “Bomber” – you may want to see what he said about The Nation this past weekend? Or does not fit your narrative? I bet it doesn’t. Paint the whole picture Kevin.

   Duncan
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     3 October 2011 at 10:34 am

     For anyone curious, here’s the link: http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2011/10/nation-and-qa-review.html

     The Nation
     OH. MY. GOD! The Nation is amazing this week! It must be the fact that John Key has refused to appear on The Nation for the rest of the year that The Nation team have decided they have nothing to lose and are asking the bloody hard questions, and sweet Jesus Duncan is a wonder to behold.
     • Deadly_NZ 6.1.1

       3 October 2011 at 5:13 pm

       But thats just typical of Garner the last time he did an interview with Jokeyhen I thought Garner was going to bow down to him, he was so subservant.
   • Kevin Welsh 6.2

     3 October 2011 at 10:56 am

     Duncan, I just look forward to the day YOU paint the whole picture and give us the facts instead of your opinion.
   • thejackal 6.3

     3 October 2011 at 11:15 am

     Duncan Garner

     For a start Kevin it wasn’t my mistake, it was made by someone on our website, but it has been fixed.

     It may not have been your mistake Duncan, but it was yet another factually incorrect statement that gave people the wrong idea. It should be a prerequisite for a reporter to be able to do basic math for starters:

     Back at the end of May, Duncan presented (10:20 into this report) a Reid Research poll showing 46% of New Zealander’s supporting cut’s to the Kiwisaver scheme, with exactly the same percentage supposedly being against the cuts. 7% did not know. Leaving 1% unaccounted for. A TV3 article then contradicted those figures reporting “Of the 1000 voters in the poll, 43% agreed with the cuts, while an equal number disagreed”. I haven’t heard any explanation about that contradiction?

     And if you want to go quoting “Bomber” – you may want to see what he said about The Nation this past weekend? Or does not fit your narrative?

     I don’t think you get off being inaccurate on numerous occasions just because Bomber praises you for a single instance of credible interviewing. Is that what you actually think Duncan, that you are absolved from numerous incorrect and unbalanced reports because occasionally you do your job properly?

     There’s no doubt in my mind that you’re a biased reporter Duncan.
     • The Baron 6.3.1

       3 October 2011 at 11:21 am

       … And by biased you mean not constantly attacking the Nats on every issue the opposition raises?
       I’m curious, given that there appear to be so many media experts on here – can any of you give me a good definition of what non- biased reporting is? What’s the yardstick that you’re all using to declare all of these journalists such tory suck ups? Bcause it seems to me that a) none of you really understand what a media is meant to do; and/or b) don’t really know what the word bias means.
       Happy to be corrected, once you all tell us this magical yardstick is that you’re applying.
       • mickysavage 6.3.1.1

         3 October 2011 at 11:33 am

         Ooh ooh I can’t provide an example of non biased reporting but I can provide a classic example of biased reporting:
          
         Latest 3 News poll shows Nat’s support doubled

         
         Clearly not true but adds to the perception that National is on a roll.
         
          
          
         • The Baron 6.3.1.1.1

           3 October 2011 at 12:06 pm

           Jesus Greg – you got any others than the one that was apologised for and immediately corrected once noted? Its called a fuck up – not a conspiracy.
           Does any media outlet meet this insanely high bar that you demand from them?
           • The Voice of Reason 6.3.1.1.1.1

             3 October 2011 at 12:10 pm

             Accuracy is not an “insanely high bar”, Baron, it’s journalism 101. The media have a duty to be fair and accurate and to present alternatives, where they exist.
       • thejackal 6.3.1.2

         3 October 2011 at 11:55 am

         The Baron

         a) none of you really understand what a media is meant to do.

         The media is meant to report the facts and not be slanted or biased in favour of one political party. They should not omit to report on relevant stories. The article in question contravenes fairness and accuracy.

         b) don’t really know what the word bias means.

         Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives. The term “media bias” implies a pervasive or widespread bias contravening the standards of journalism.

         Happy now dick?
       • XSD 6.3.1.3

         3 October 2011 at 12:08 pm

         Generally speaking it would be for whoever the “media” was, to pick up on contradictions of information. The above examples give figures that don’t match – why? And if they know the why, inform the viewer/listener instead of leaving a big gap. If they don’t know why, ask the source of the info, or in other cases, the person directly responsible/Minister/interviewee. It’s so simple, there must be a good reason why it doesn’t happen often. One borderline urban myth is that some politicans shut out reporters who ask hard questions or don’t let them control the way the information is presented. Then you have a reporter with nothing to report. Should a journalist have to put his career on the line every time he asks a question?

         The perception of bias happens when these apparent gaps of information happen more often to one side of an argument and are passed over on the other as if they don’t matter. This could be coincidence, but as time goes by it becomes difficult to believe. I’d like to believe that journalists know it when it when happens and they know what is opinon and what isn’t, but I have no definate evidence. My impression is that even if the mix of aware to not aware was 50/50, there would be less “bias” in reporting. Unfortuanatly, the reasons for these incidences could be any range of behind- the-scenes restrictions of time, personnel and politics and the only way to adjust the perception the public have of journalists would come at the cost of exposing the internal silliness most professions contain – and that it isn’t going to happen, live to air.

         Being aware of how personal beliefs colour any interpretation or recollection (or report) is an advanced level of communication and once you get there, the speed at which you can report – with relative certainty – is greatly reduced. You couldn’t, for example, turn out a Close Up or Campbell Live everynight. You might not even get to print a daily newspaper; instead opting for a bi-weekly or monthly magazine. We’ve all read reports, months in the making, that cause a stir for a long time after they’re written. Is that what people want every single night at 6:30pm? As a profitable alternative, you’d have to cross the line into tabloid journalism, collecting emotional responses to an event, or arranging steroeptypes, and just hope that some element of truth happened to intrude by chance.

         Blatant mis-information (lies) is not a good thing for journalism in theory, but is also almost impossible to prove. The Media (whoever that is) could do a better job at removing the apparent bias in their reporting, but the public have to understand some of the practicalities of what they ask. They may find they feel more secure with bias, lies and mis-information than the truth of uncertainty.
     • felix 6.3.2

       3 October 2011 at 11:56 am

       I don’t think it’s fair to call Duncan “a biased reporter”. If anything he’s a sensationalist reporter. He goes where the blood is.

       There are 99 other criticisms I can think of, but a bias ain’t one.
7. Rose 7

   3 October 2011 at 11:11 am

   The media goes nuts with the same stories every time one of their dross polls is released, Labour Slumps, National Unbeatable etc etc, and yet when it comes down to it any movement within their polls is within the margin of error. It’s such bollocks!
8. The Voice of Reason 8

   3 October 2011 at 11:33 am

   Anybody want to take a guess who is making the following analysis of the weekend’s poll results?
    
   “That gap is almost certainly going to close,”
   “People haven’t been focused on politics recently.”
   “In the last month before the election there’s going to be an intense campaign, and when New Zealanders focus on it they always pull a government back a bit.”
    
   Is a) me, b) some other random lefty or c) Bill English?
    
   Answers on the back of a postcard to this address.
   • Tiger Mountain 8.1

     3 October 2011 at 12:18 pm

     A most reasonable comment Voice.

     Hollowest of men Hooten was a bit fizzy on Nat Rad today, something had rattled him. Was it the lugubrious Mike Williams, (who made some good points when able to speak), or a credit downgrade perhaps?

     The polls are eye candy for the uninformed voter, but surely the Nats know that MMP makes a direct translation of them to a real world election result highly unlikely. The ShonKey Double Dipton schism continues, maybe they need to herb up like brother Don.

     What does worry me is not the polls so much, rather the unenrolled under 30s.
     • The Voice of Reason 8.1.1

       3 October 2011 at 1:34 pm

       The unenrolled and the enrolled non voter have to be the left’s target over the next few weeks, TM. It’s such a simple process to get on the roll, but the right and their media glove puppets are seeding the meme that it’s not worth bothering. A low turnout will see the Nats back, but a biggish turnout opens up the door for a left coalition.
       And further confirmation that Labour are in with a shot with the Tory’s favourite ‘left’ commentator and Mystic Meg soundalike Chris Trotter saying Labour can’t possibly win. If Chris says it can’t happen, I’d say it’s a sure bet that it can.
     • Carol 8.1.2

       3 October 2011 at 2:38 pm

       It seemed to me that Hooten got a little rattled & “fizzy” because Ryan called him on some of his spin and tried to get him to focus on the crucial issues and credible arguments. He increasingly tried to talk over her and continue with his spin lines.
       • Tiger Mountain 8.1.2.1

         3 October 2011 at 2:52 pm

         You are probably right Carol, the script must not be deviated from. Genuine open debate-avoid-avoid. Do not engage. As the strategic absence of relevant ministers and the PM on various TV and Radio New Zealand programmes demonstrates.
9. TightyRighty 9

   3 October 2011 at 12:26 pm

   I liked the poll that showed the public service is performing a better job despite state sector job cuts and the subsequent doom and gloom predicted by labour, this site and the PSA.
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 9.1

     3 October 2011 at 1:03 pm

     You know they haven’t cut anything yet. How do you think Bill is going to appease S & P when he is running a $18B annual deficit?
     • TightyRighty 9.1.1

       3 October 2011 at 4:00 pm

       just taxes for the productive and entrepreneurial and state service numbers. My two favorite cuts
   • Draco T Bastard 9.2

     3 October 2011 at 1:16 pm

     Yes, well, you would as you’ve proven time and again that you prefer fantasy to reality.
     • TightyRighty 9.2.1

       3 October 2011 at 4:01 pm

       What was that Draco? sorry, i can’t hear as you are so far removed from the reality that you are coming across very faintly.
   • lprent 9.3

     3 October 2011 at 2:10 pm

     A subtle (but important) reinterpretation that makes your comment spin into bullshit (as it usually does). That actual poll was about peoples perceptions – not the actual level of service.

     It has nothing to do with any actual performance differences. Most people actually don’t have that much direct interaction with state services, and many of those who do are only likely to do so a few times over the last few years. So a sample of a thousand random people is pretty much going to measure how people perceive the effects rather than what the actual effects are. In effect, they are likely to reflect the spin that they have heard rather than anything tangible.

     I realize that it is the sincere belief of National flatulences like yourself that spin is everything. However I’d say that asking a thousand people who deal with the state services every month would be a better sample. However I’m sure you won’t like those results.
     • TightyRighty 9.3.1

       3 October 2011 at 2:35 pm

       Really? what about the surgery figures? Crime? resource consents at ECan?

       perceptions, facts, all the same this time
       • McFlock 9.3.1.1

         3 October 2011 at 6:04 pm

         So you’re giving the government credit for the Canterbury earthquake cutting Canterbury region theft by 20%? There are a variety of factors that affect crime stats beyond the government, and that’s before one starts factoring in that crime stats are notoriously (excuse the pun) vulnerable to “massaging”.

         As for the other two, got a link for the surgery stats? Because a rubber stamp in an environmental watchdog is not something to boast about.
       • mik e 9.3.1.2

         3 October 2011 at 8:25 pm

         Resource consents have only speed up because their are so few,because of lack of growth especially in the building industry when CHCH needs them their won’t be enough people employed to keep that speed up as is already happening.
   • mik e 9.4

     3 October 2011 at 8:22 pm

     We already work the longest hours in the world.Once these cuts really bight and the private sector consultants start getting payed 3x the wage the productivity will wear off soon as the better and brighter head for Australia where they work less hours for more money their will be a shortfall like in the nineties when these policies were last wheeled out.Just look at blingishes pathetic lack of growth except in debt.
10. duncan garner 10

    3 October 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Anthony,

    Given some of the crap that comes through here, I’m not sure it’s worth engaging or immediately correcting and apologising for a mistake on our website.
    I might stick to my original policy – which I broke – and stay away from the blogs. I’m sure there will be some interest in our “other” poll questions out tonight and tomorrow.

    Cheers
    Duncan

    [Will reply in a new comment below – Anthony / r0b]
    • Kevin Welsh 10.1

      3 October 2011 at 12:53 pm

      Not exactly the first time you have broken your ‘original policy’ Duncan.
      • McFlock 10.1.1

        3 October 2011 at 1:37 pm

        To be fair, Kevin, at least he and Jeremy fronted up and corrected the error.
         
        Yes, there are issues around the way headlines don’t always match the articles which don’t always match the source data which might or might not match reality (polls in particular), but generally I think the main issue is one that hits all news organisations – not enough proofreading and too much random editing without fully grasping the context. Stuff is abysmal at it. 
         
        They saw the issue was raised and resolved it – there is the question as to whether a single poll result that hits a psychological threshhold (nats “double” labs), and that is a wider commentary about our current blipvert media culture. I don’t think personalising the debate in that context is very productive. Don’t get me wrong, I love swearing at tory swine (it’s even better in person), but the dude is at least trying to engage and do his job – which is more than Key has ever done.
        • Kevin Welsh 10.1.1.1

          3 October 2011 at 1:49 pm

          Yes McF, he did front and that is appreciated. What sticks in my craw is that time-and-again the media in New Zealand is found wanting on the facts and when on the rare occasion that they do front up, as Duncan did, they try to justify their shit standards, with comments like:

          ‘What else do you want? Off with someone’s head? Linked to $40 odd million? Get real Kevin.’

          Im glad that the $40 mill bailout of MediaWorks has had no bearing on their political coverage, as I look forward to the leaders of the opposition parties getting there arvo spots on RadioLive.
          • McFlock 10.1.1.1.1

            3 October 2011 at 1:59 pm

            I’m pissed about it too, but it’s not like it was in a brown paper bag addressed to “DG@3news”.  Bringing it up just ashe fronts up for a particularly bad clanger on the website was a bit of a disconnect.
              
            My philosophy on the MSM is that they also want to follow the money, which does limit their bias (conscious or subconscious or merely apparent)in most cases. That’s why I get intrigued when a number of interviewers and news editors start being a bit askance about smile&wave – it generally means that reality is beginning to pop the bubble political junkies live in. 
          • vto 10.1.1.1.2

            3 October 2011 at 2:03 pm

            RadioLive, ha ha…

            Governmennt by talkback radio has finally arrived. How depressing. I’m going fushing again …
    • lprent 10.2

      3 October 2011 at 2:02 pm

      …immediately correcting and apologising for a mistake on our website

      That would be my pick. I noticed it this morning when I was lounging around reading the morning news on the pad. It was a rather glaring mistake. I’d have written about it somewhat more sarcastically than r0b (he is a *lot* nicer than I am – and we won’t even mention what Irish would have written 😈 ). But I wound up with more important things to do*

      BTW: When are the TV stations going to start putting the actual poll data up so we can read it without the ‘interpretation’? There is usually so much spin on the numbers that it is hardly worth watching or reading the polls that you and TVNZ put out.

      * There was the wafting smell of a dead power supply from a windows server when I went downstairs.
    • thejackal 10.3

      3 October 2011 at 2:57 pm

      Duncan Garner

      Given some of the crap that comes through here, I’m not sure it’s worth engaging or immediately correcting and apologising for a mistake on our website.

      I think most people here appreciate you taking the time to let the editor at 3news.co.nz know about the error… However your further comments are not appreciated.

      Particularly the arrogance whereby you say you might not even bother to correct a known mistake in the future. Just in case you weren’t aware, the Press Council requires factual reporting and correct headlines. Try to save the people who believe in factual reporting some time by ensuring mistakes are corrected… or better yet being honest in your reporting in the first place.

      I would be far more interested in your polls if they were accompanied with all the relevant data, and presented in an unbiased manner.
    • Anne 10.4

      3 October 2011 at 3:13 pm

      Hang on duncan:

      Yes, I thought some of the criticism – especially after you and your chief editor had apologised – was a bit over the top.

      There’s a lot of very good stuff that comes through on this site. Well worth a read.
11. r0b 11

    3 October 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Duncan wrote: Given some of the crap that comes through here, I’m not sure it’s worth engaging or immediately correcting and apologising for a mistake on our website. 

    There’s a lot of emotional stuff written on lots of web sites, including the comments sections of 3News.  I don’t agree with everything that gets written here, but I do understand where it’s coming from, as I’m sure you do too.

    I might stick to my original policy – which I broke – and stay away from the blogs.

    I hope you won’t (and I’m pretty sure you’re not really that thin skinned). I think it is useful for public figures to engage via “new” media, e.g. Labour politicians on Red Alert, and media figures with their own blogs and engaging on others.  Like it or not the “MSM” and “new media” are merging to the extent that they’re already just points on an increasingly blurred continuum.  Can’t turn back the tide…

    I’m sure there will be some interest in our “other” poll questions out tonight and tomorrow. 

    There was last time, as I recall!

    Cheers
    Anthony / r0b 
    • J Mex 11.1

      3 October 2011 at 6:13 pm

      While we’ve got a whole bunch of commenters asking for corrections and retractions, how about Bill fixing his post here…

      http://thestandard.org.nz/a-smidgen-of-truth-escapes-the-msm

      in lieu of this…

      ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8792829/BBC-financial-expert-Alessio-Rastani-Im-an-attention-seeker-not-a-trader.html
      • McFlock 11.1.1

        3 October 2011 at 6:32 pm

        Lol – an owner of an in-debt company who lives in a home that’s in the name of a close family member/spouse and who trades as a “hobby”.
         
        Sounds like a perfect representative of the financial sector, to me.
         
        I also note that the actual quote in the article differs from the quote in the headline to make it look like he’s not actually a trader. Not biased, no…
        • J Mex 11.1.1.1

          3 October 2011 at 8:29 pm

          “They approached me,” he told The Telegraph. “I’m an attention seeker. That is the main reason I speak. That is the reason I agreed to go on the BBC. Trading is a like a hobby. It is not a business. I am a talker. I talk a lot. I love the whole idea of public speaking.”

          The guy has never worked as a trader. His view on Goldman Sachs and the future of the stock markets is worth about as much as your opinion. Nothing.
          • McFlock 11.1.1.1.1

            3 October 2011 at 8:40 pm

            He does, however, trade – even if as a hobby. And he seems to have the personal finance structures of some notable finance company CEOs who have been in the news in the past couple of years. And his opinion was more accurate than the speculators who got hit by a popping bubble.
             
            • joe90 11.1.1.1.1.1

              3 October 2011 at 8:55 pm

              His web page, about page and Why I pray for another recession.
              • J Mex …

                3 October 2011 at 9:11 pm

                “And his opinion was more accurate than the speculators who got hit by a popping bubble”

                How is his opinion more accurate? Surely you mean, you agree more with his opinion.

                He has exhibited absolutely no ability to make correct predictions, let alone profit from them.
                • McFlock …

                  3 October 2011 at 9:20 pm

                  In that his opinion aligns with real-world data. I know this is a concept you might have difficulty with.

                  Are you then denying that a few people have made huge amounts of money shortselling stock off the back of the Global Financial Cluster Fuck? 
                    
                  Or that the largest investment firms essentially dictate economic policy (like bailouts) to some of the most powerful governments on the planet?
                    
                  The guy was a hell of a lot more accurate than the guys who thought “property prices will keep going up 2007-9”.
12. J Mex 12

    3 October 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Humor me and tell me where his “opinion aligns with real-world data” ???

    Are you then denying that a few people have made huge amounts of money shortselling stock off the back of the Global Financial Cluster Fuck?

    No. I would have to be an idiot – because most TRADING (especially currency and derivatives trading) is zero sum gain. That means that for every trade where someone make $100k off a trade, some other guy, or institution, lost $100k. Derivatives are folk betting against each other. I’m not being rude, but I can tell that you haven’t got the faintest idea about trading.

    It is a ridiculous question for a second reason. Some traders and institutions made money off the GFC, some lost a huge deal. Entire trading entities were wiped out. If you want to run a line that traders loved the GFC, you are creating a fantasyland completely disconnected from reality. Hugely powerful trading organisations were wiped out because they overextended and bet wrong.

    Your hobby trader would also have more credibility if he made ANY predictions historically that turned out to be true. If you want to watch a guy making accurate predictions in the face of scorn, check out this guy…
    • McFlock 12.1

      3 October 2011 at 11:24 pm

      Actually there were a number of points to his little piece. Basically he suggested that those who profited from the GFCF were in a position to structure the entire system to the point that they profited at the expense of others (both in the market and from govt bailouts). He argued the supremacy of corporations over civil government.
       
      It might be a “zero-sum game” to you, but in case you hadn’t noticed there was a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the already rich. Overall it might be “zero sum”, but that’s just the tyranny of averages.
       
      As you point out, some speculators were right, others were wrong. The concept of a reliably accurate market prediction (as opposed to the description we saw) is a fantasy. The market is a gamble, with the illusion of rationality overlaid. The problem is when the corporations become too massive, devouring each other (e.g. Goldman Sacks acquisitions), they become the “house” and the house sets up the casino so it always wins.
       
13. J Mex 13

    4 October 2011 at 10:11 am

    He said a lot of things. But none of them were of ANY importance. They were opinions, which you agree with. You call that “opinions aligning with real world data”. I call that “A guy, talking rubbish”

    Basically he suggested that those who profited from the GFCF were in a position to structure the entire system to the point that they profited at the expense of others (both in the market and from govt bailouts). He argued the supremacy of corporations over civil government.

    He didn’t say anything of the sort. That is you hearing what you want to hear. He said that the large hedge funds and corporations “didn’t care about the rescue package”. You hear “they are structuring the entire system to profit”. He also said “Governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world”. This is “opinion that aligns with real world evidence”? One guy, no successful trading experience, whose job is speaking to groups of 50-100 people on how to learn to trade on the futures market?

    You have a view, fine. It is that large corporations are evil etc. Traders control the world etc etc. Fine. But don’t hold up some goober on t.v as your evidence of these things. The ONLY qualification he has to talk about these things, is that he got on TV to talk about these things, and said some things you agree with. You do yourself, and your argument a massive disservice by doing this. Don’t you see that?
    • McFlock 13.1

      4 October 2011 at 12:53 pm

      Actually if you flip the first and second “he said/you hear” items, it’s a bit more sensible:
      He said that the large hedge funds and corporations “didn’t care about the rescue package”. This is “opinion that aligns with real world evidence”

       He also said “Governments don’t rule the world, Goldman Sachs rules the world”. You hear “they are structuring the entire system to profit” (particularly if you recall that major trading houses were apparently selling debt packages as equivalent ackages, but in fact they were stacking the more profitable mortgages into packages for preferred investors, that GS has extensive connections into the US and European governments and reserve banks, and so on).  
       
      I’m not actually holding him up as “evidence” – all I’m saying is that his comments were a hell of a lot more accurate than the day to day financial advice being peddled around the planet.

Links to post

1. 3News lynch mob « The Standard: posted on 19 October 2011 at 4:41 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS