All our eggs in the dairy basket

Written By: - Date published: 12:27 pm, May 28th, 2015 - 157 comments
Categories: economy, farming, leadership, national - Tags: , ,

This government has been artificiality buoyed by a diary boom, now the bust leaves us highly exposed:

Milk price payout drop to plunge NZ into ‘$13b economic black hole’

Fonterra has forecast a $5.25-per-kg payout for milk solids in the 2015/16 season, and dropped the current season price by 10 cents. The next-season forecast is less than analyst predictions of about $5.50 per kg, and will be below the break-even point for many farmers. Last season’s payments had already fallen to an eight-year low of $4.50 per kg, but that figure has now dropped even lower to $4.40.
…
Labour’s Finance Spokesperson Grant Robertson responded to the drop by saying New Zealand has all its eggs in the dairy basket, and needs to diversify its industries to avoid Budget deficits.

“The milk price payout was $8.40 last season. It is dropping to $4.40 this season and will only recover to $5.25 next season,” Mr Robertson said

“That’s a $13 billion two-year economic black hole over the next two years. The big black hole in the Government’s budget was a plan to diversify the economy so New Zealand is not so reliant on commodity traders.”

Fonterra Chairman John Wilson said global commodity prices had not increased as expected, as markets were oversupplied with dairy.

Markets are oversupplied with dairy. The good times boom is over. A wise government would have already diversified into a green economy. An average government would start the process now. What will the Nats do?

157 comments on “All our eggs in the dairy basket ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. infused 1
    28 May 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Ah the Green Economy… Might as well join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Every business has boom and bust times. That’s why you don’t be [r0b: I’m trying to stamp out that particular hate speak] and spend it all.

    • r0b 1.1
      28 May 2015 at 12:55 pm

      What a complete fool you are infused. And as to spending it all, National has run up $80b debt.

      • infused 1.1.1
        28 May 2015 at 1:09 pm

        Is the government a business? No, didn’t think so.

        • Tracey 1.1.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 1:12 pm

          what is it, in your view?

          • infused 1.1.1.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 1:16 pm

            Well, I really don’t have all day to write that up. Maybe when I have some time I’ll post it in open discussion for you.

            • Tracey 1.1.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2015 at 1:19 pm

              LOL – which is infused-speak for I don’t know and I never will

              To call BS on something you ought to already be able to describe what it is in a paragraph or so.

              • infused …
                28 May 2015 at 1:37 pm

                A small govt that governs without hindrance for the people, if you want a one liner. Although, I would greatly expand on that. I’m at work, hence the comment.

                If that means borrowing 80b cause Labour spent it all to keep people employed, so be it. Govt debt is hardly a problem at the moment.

                • Tracey …
                  28 May 2015 at 1:41 pm

                  is there a place for business “principles” in government?

                  • infused …
                    28 May 2015 at 1:42 pm

                    Boy, you go off on some tangents.

                    • Tracey …
                      28 May 2015 at 1:45 pm

                      how is it a tangent when you wrote

                      “Is the government a business? No, didn’t think so.”

                      You were the one who brought up whether a government is or is not a business, are you admitting you took the thread off topic?

                      Well, you and I can’t really discuss the green economy (subject of the post – in part) because you arent clear on what that actually means.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  28 May 2015 at 2:54 pm

                  If that means borrowing 80b cause Labour spent it all to keep people employed, so be it.

                  Nine surpluses in a row would indicate that Labour didn’t spend it all. In fact, it appears that they didn’t spend it at all.

                  The fact that you know this and still said that they spent it all indicates that you’re lying.

        • Jones 1.1.1.2
          28 May 2015 at 4:10 pm

          It most certainly is… so much so that big-business keeps wanting to do business with it.

        • Stuff the Politicians 1.1.1.3
          28 May 2015 at 4:17 pm

          Well yes it actually, the biggest by a mile in this country.

    • Puckish Rogue 1.2
      28 May 2015 at 1:00 pm

      I suppose if you know you’ll never be the major party in power you can say whatever you like

      • Tracey 1.2.1
        28 May 2015 at 1:06 pm

        Is there a reason you think that we cannot diversify AND do what we do now? What do you think the term “Green Economy” means?

        • Puckish Rogue 1.2.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

          What do you think the term “Green Economy” means?

          A load of old cobblers is what I really think

          • Tracey 1.2.1.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 1:43 pm

            You could say “I don’t know”, but then from your reply, I guess you already did.

            If we don’t define what we are each talking about, there’s not much point in a discussion.

            What is it that you think is “old cobblers”, try to answer without using the words green economy. What do you think was the specific old cobblers Key was speaking when he said

            “encourage people to have a more green economy”

          • mauÄ« 1.2.1.1.2
            28 May 2015 at 2:04 pm

            It’s lucky humans are so adaptable that the next generation can adapt to +4 deg temps.

            • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1.2.1
              28 May 2015 at 8:53 pm

              Yes, we are very adaptable. But just saying “+4 deg temps” really undersells the destruction coming our way.

              Extreme weather events is what we’ll have to adapt to. And adapt our food supply to. Or adapt ourselves to a less diverse and secure food supply…

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                28 May 2015 at 9:05 pm

                Yes, the human population will definitely adapt to a far less dependable and far less bountiful food supply. Egypt, India and Australia are not going to be great places to be.

              • mauī …
                28 May 2015 at 9:14 pm

                Q. How do we get 4 million kiwi oil addicts who are enabled by leaders who supply them with oil syringes to become sober?

                That’s a serious question, ideas welcome.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  28 May 2015 at 9:41 pm

                  The addiction is to energy and ease and second hand marketed delusions…you are asking the right questions

                • Lanthanide …
                  28 May 2015 at 10:20 pm

                  The only way capitalism knows how: price.

                  Demand destruction and substitution will be the saviour of us! At least, the ones that survive.

                • b waghorn …
                  29 May 2015 at 7:40 am

                  Electric vehicles because as much as some greenys think that people will live a “lesser” lifestyle if only they understood! Its not going to happen .

                  • weka …
                    29 May 2015 at 7:47 am

                    Everyone in NZ will live a lower lifestyle, it’s just a matter of whether we will change while it’s easy or wait until climate change and peak oil force us to. The sooner we change the better our ongoing lifestyles will be.

                    • b waghorn …
                      29 May 2015 at 8:07 am

                      I realize that but politically the only option is to shift people off oil with out curbing there lifestyle s.

                    • weka …
                      29 May 2015 at 8:48 am

                      How’s that working out? 😉

                      I’m not sure we know what’s possible politically, we’ve never been in this situation before. But if we look at other times when people’s lives have been under serious thread in a distant rather than immediate way, we might get an idea. How did the NZ government manage rationing in WW2? A more recent, smaller example would be carless days.

                      I agree with you that politically this is very difficult, and this is my understanding of what the GP are doing. It’s not like there’s no GP people who don’t understand how bad things are, but they also understand the political reality and how to work with that.

                      I also agree with Bill that we need strong leadership on working with the wider population to create better understanding and engagement, and that if this happened we would probably shift much more quickly. He thinks the GP can do this, I’m in two minds, I think it might be possible for them to do this but have yet to see an explanation of how that might be done. Leadership from outside political parties might be another way this could happen.

          • Hanswurst 1.2.1.1.3
            28 May 2015 at 6:29 pm

            A load of old cobblers is what I really think

            Good to see you admitting it finally.

    • Tracey 1.3
      28 May 2015 at 1:04 pm

      Cos we can’t possibly have diversification and what we have now.

      • infused 1.3.1
        28 May 2015 at 1:08 pm

        Of course we can. The whole ‘green economy’ is bullshit though.

        Also, half my comment above is missing, which kind of puts it out of context.

        • Tracey 1.3.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 1:10 pm

          what do you think “green economy” means?

          • infused 1.3.1.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 1:13 pm

            Well, the actual meaning, and what a lot of people mean here differs quite a bit. This is realised by what rob has linked to (post from 2013).

            • Tracey 1.3.1.1.1.1
              28 May 2015 at 1:14 pm

              what do YOU think it means? Afterall you have labelled it “BS”, so what doe sit mean to you when you write that?

              • infused …
                28 May 2015 at 1:19 pm

                I said BS to what a lot of people here refer it to be. If you want to see that clearly, read the wiki entry, then read what Greenpeace has to say about it (the link rob shared)

                • Tracey …
                  28 May 2015 at 1:37 pm

                  infused wrote

                  “The whole ‘green economy’ is bullshit though.”

                  So, no, you clearly wrote that the “green economy” is bullshit. I’ve asked what you mean by the green economy. You said you haven’t time to
                  write the long response you think my question required. I just thought you would know what you thought the green economy was when you called it bullshit. That’s all. For some reason you have turned your answers into being about what others think it is. Fair enough, but it wasn’t such a hard question, I thought.

        • dukeofurl 1.3.1.2
          28 May 2015 at 1:28 pm

          There is someone else you should tell its all bullshit?

          “Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is going down the path of making sure that there are quite a number of aspects of the economy that would encourage people to have a more green economy. ”

          When Key was in China last year he was on the same page as President Xi jinping

          “…expand cooperation in the fields of green economy, energy saving, emission reduction, and high technology, and promote cultural, educational and tourist exchanges….”

          • infused 1.3.1.2.1
            28 May 2015 at 1:34 pm

            Read my comment under Tracey @ 1.3.1.1.1.1

            • Tracey 1.3.1.2.1.1
              28 May 2015 at 1:38 pm

              infused wrote

              “The whole ‘green economy’ is bullshit though.”

              So, no, you clearly wrote that the “green economy” is bullshit. I’ve asked what you mean by the green economy. You said you haven’t time to
              write the long response you think my question required. I just thought you would know what you thought the green economy was when you called it bullshit. That’s all. For some reason you have turned your answers into being about what others think it is. Fair enough, but it wasn’t such a hard question, I thought.

              • infused …
                28 May 2015 at 1:39 pm

                “So, no, you clearly wrote that the “green economy” is bullshit. I’ve asked what you mean by the green economy. You said you haven’t time to”

                Excuse me? I didn’t say that at all.

                I said I didn’t have time to write what I think government is. Quite different.

                • Tracey …
                  28 May 2015 at 1:49 pm

                  you’re right, you said the green economy is bullshit and have refused to clarify what “you” think is meant by green economy. I can see why you might think you haven;t refused to say what it means even though you have not written what you think it means. You clearly have time but just don’t want to. Sorry.

                  • infused …
                    28 May 2015 at 2:19 pm

                    I don’t believe you will get a green economy, as what wiki states, until the world changes.

                    And there is one big issue here. Oil.

                    Until oil is removed, or costs a significant amount more than R&D in to clean alternatives, it’s not going to happen.

                    That’s pretty much where the argument starts and ends in my books.

                    The problem with this is that ‘the people in control’ of oil, will never let that extreme pricing happen. Sure, they will milk us every now and then, like what happened a number of years back, but the whole peak oil situation with pricing won’t.

                    You can also add to that, people don’t want to give up their current lifestyle until it has some serious impact on their life.

                    So in the end, It’s not a matter of what I believe. That makes no difference.

                    • Molly …
                      28 May 2015 at 2:50 pm

                      Infused, with someone without much time to answer simple questions, your constant ducking and diving represents time aplenty.

                      You still haven’t specified what “you” think a green economy entails, despite redirecting to Wikipedia.

                    • Tracey …
                      28 May 2015 at 4:35 pm

                      Ok, so the wiki definition is what you meant by “green economy” which you think is bullshit. I really wanted your to tell me in your own words but dashing off to wiki will do.

                      When you say the world needs to change do you mean people need to change, and which people? Will you wait until they change, and then will you change? Or how do you see it working?

                      Did you vote in 2014? I ask cos you think what you think doesn’t make a difference, but yet you still voted, why?

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.3
          28 May 2015 at 2:56 pm

          The whole ‘green economy’ is bullshit though.

          No, the current economy is bullshit, and cowshit, and unsustainable.

      • Dazzer 1.3.2
        28 May 2015 at 2:05 pm

        In 2010 dairy was 2.8% of our GDP. Can you or someone else explain how that we need to diversify more than that.

        • Tracey 1.3.2.1
          28 May 2015 at 2:19 pm

          what is it in 2014/2015?

          so the highs and lows of dairy prices is not a problem Dazer? To everyone? No one? Some folks (which ones)? Do tell.

          What do you think of the notion of a Green economy, and what do you mean when you use the term green economy (if you use it)

          • infused 1.3.2.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 2:24 pm

            Why don’t you tell us Tracey? How about we hear it from yourself.

            • Tracey 1.3.2.1.1.1
              28 May 2015 at 2:50 pm

              because YOU are the one who wrote it, the green economy, is bullshit. i am trying to understand you.

        • b waghorn 1.3.2.2
          28 May 2015 at 4:21 pm

          GDP means SFA what was it for export earnings.?

        • miravox 1.3.2.3
          28 May 2015 at 4:44 pm

          “Can you or someone else explain how that we need to diversify more than that.

          Because
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/New_Zealand_Export_Treemap_%282011%29.png

        • dukeofurl 1.3.2.5
          29 May 2015 at 2:17 pm

          Cant possibly be that small.
          2014 NZ GDP is $230 bill.

          Fonterra has revenue just about$ 22.3 bill for 2014.

          Its under 90% of the milk supply. We could say $25 bill with the others.

          We are looking at 10.8% of GDP ONLY for revenue related to milk and its other products.

          Then there is all the other services required for dairy farms. Transport is a biggy, stock trucks, animal feed is now the biggest average cost for dairy farmers .
          Farms need fences, gates, quads…. the list goes on.

          We could be well above 12% of GDP for dairy related as part of NZ economy.

          Then you take that number, any change in dairy income has little effect in the bigger cities and places that arent strong dairy regions, ie Hawkes Bay, Maybe North land in parts.
          But in others Dairy is a much higher share of economy in Waikato, Taranaki, and the newer areas now of Southland, South Canterbury.

          Dairying could easily be 30% of the economy in those areas.

          Next isnt looking good for payouts by Fonterra either, and if they go to 3-4 years, expect big taxpayer bailouts for dairy farmers.

          IT Will HAPPEN, as Key wnats to dump millions in Saudi Sheep farm, the local cow cockies will demand their share ( as they have allways)

          Privatise the profits , socialise the losses.

  2. Clean_power 2
    28 May 2015 at 1:25 pm

    The sky is falling, said the respected economist Grant Robertson. Let’s await confirmation from the Green Party to conclude NZ is doomed.

    • infused 3.1
      28 May 2015 at 1:40 pm

      Good to see you can use Google.

      • r0b 3.1.1
        28 May 2015 at 1:43 pm

        Indeed I can. It remains to be seen whether you can read.

        • Tracey 3.1.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 1:51 pm

          thanks for the post r0b and revealing that PR and infused will call bullshit and cobblers on “green economy” but won’t tell us what that term means to them. Hopefully they have clicked a link or 2 and are trying to formulate a meaning they can share so we can work out what everyone is writing about.

        • infused 3.1.1.2
          28 May 2015 at 1:54 pm

          yeah, I took just one link on this ‘cleantech’ growth. It’s all venture capital on tech startups that seems to be producing nothing. 2014 investors are pulling back.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6367528/A-clean-bill-of-wealth
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8285106/Green-economy-way-of-future

          In fact, they seem to be predicting a cleantech crash. I’m sure you just missed that stuff.

          So, yeah, not very convincing.

          • Tracey 3.1.1.2.1
            28 May 2015 at 2:21 pm

            hmmm but why do you need links? You already know what you mean by green economy and what you think of as the green economy is bullshit, it;s just you are not sharing that context with us…

            No point in moving on to rubbish more stuff when you haven’t defined the last stuff you rubbished?

            • infused 3.1.1.2.1.1
              28 May 2015 at 2:25 pm

              Well, you will see why above.

              • Tracey …
                28 May 2015 at 2:48 pm

                some investors are pulling back? from what? the green economy? what does that mean? what do you mean by green economy when you say it is bullshit?

                sorry to go in circles but you havent defined what you are writing about so its hard yo follow your discussion.

          • r0b 3.1.1.2.2
            28 May 2015 at 2:30 pm

            yeah, I took just one link on this ‘cleantech’ growth. … So, yeah, not very convincing.

            And there you have it.

  4. Bill 4
    28 May 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Green growth has always struck me as a fanciful idea whereby the market economy is basically cleaned up…a bit like wiping its chin while it devours everything. Gotta kill that beast, not try and make it presentable.

    • Tracey 4.1
      28 May 2015 at 2:22 pm

      and by green growth do you mean the green economy?

      • Molly 4.1.1
        28 May 2015 at 2:53 pm

        Tracy, if you are in Auckland and up to a visit to the Aotea Centre, there is an interesting Auckland Conversation scheduled for tonight.

        Zaid Hassan: The Social Labs Revolution

        Along with green considerations, the triple bottom line movement and social enterprises are starting to pop up.

        • Tracey 4.1.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 4:22 pm

          I am in Auckland… will see if I can get there. I have a guest at 5pm… so finger’s crossed

    • aerobubble 4.2
      28 May 2015 at 3:12 pm

      The analogue with nature, that recycling sustainability etc create healthy efficient ecosystems. Pollution is a burden on the economy, the market will always target pollution, its govt that stops the economy getting efficient. Systemic interests need distortion created by govt, or not being alleviated by govt, holding govt back from acting or forcing govt hands to keep private players in money.

      Whether the sugar industry, or the debt industry, pollution whether to our bodies or to our personal budgets, is enhanced and controlled by govt in the control of distortionists.

      Take China, its need for growth, to contain its population political will, requires it pollutes. NZ willingness to pollute rivers for dairy is directly related to big finance wanting debt farms to keep balance books profitable.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    28 May 2015 at 2:51 pm

    What will the Nats do?

    Cut taxes on the rich and go to war.

  6. Colonial Rawshark 6
    28 May 2015 at 3:31 pm

    It takes two to three decades of consistent, active government intervention and support to diversify a primary industry economy into one capable of producing a wide range of high value-added goods and services.

    When you look at global success stories Germany, Taiwan, Singapore, Shenzhen, etc. this is what it has taken.

    No country heavily invested in financialised neoliberal ideology has ever successfully made this transition: Australia likes pushing out coal and iron, Canada has its tar sands, the US destroyed its manufacturing industries and is now the Fracking King, and the UK – well it had North Sea Oil while that lasted, and now it has the fraudsters in the City of London and corporate slum lords as growth industries.

    NZ politicians have not engaged in the serious societal discussions with the nation required to achieve the cross partisan agreement required to sustain a long term economic development policy for the nation.

    Until that happens, NZ will continue meandering along the course taken by primary industry as it has been doing for the last hundred years.

    • Colonial Rawshark 6.1
      28 May 2015 at 3:43 pm

      Need I add that Treasury and the RBNZ would have to be fully onboard with the deliberate economic diversification programme. Otherwise the initiative will be undermined from the outset and won’t last beyond which ever government of good will is in at the time. If it even lasts that long.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
        28 May 2015 at 4:19 pm

        +1

        Agree with both of your comments. Back in the middle of last century we were diversifying and building our economy and then we went to the full neo-liberal ideology in the 1980s and our economies development has stalled ever since while the capitalists look for the greatest returns from the least effort – capital gains and renting.

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.1
          28 May 2015 at 4:31 pm

          And the externalisation of costs on to the rest of society and the environment.

          • Tracey 6.1.1.1.1
            28 May 2015 at 4:41 pm

            yup… benefits flow to business…

            Government out of Business!

            small print except when business needs help and money

        • Macro 6.1.1.2
          28 May 2015 at 4:37 pm

          Yep that’s it in a nutshell. Douglas Prebble Richardson and co have a great deal to answer for. Our economy went out the window with that shower sending the majority into pauperdom.

  7. Ad 7
    28 May 2015 at 4:18 pm

    – milk bust

    – oil exploration bust

    – mining bust

    – wool bust

    – housing bubble

    – huge inequality growth

    They’ve got an economic plan, sure.
    They just got Sky City to write it.

  8. Macro 8
    28 May 2015 at 4:39 pm

    We live in a milk powder republic – one step removed from a banana.

  9. Mark Freeman 9
    28 May 2015 at 5:08 pm

    What I find somewhat puzzling (to put it politely) is that virtually none of the Green Party MP’s have Solar PV, while publicly extolling the benefits of it.

    • Macro 9.1
      28 May 2015 at 9:45 pm

      You know this for a fact do you?

      • Mark Freeman 9.1.1
        29 May 2015 at 8:30 am

        Depends whether or not I should believe the Green MP who emailed that information to me I guess…what do you think?

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          29 May 2015 at 8:49 am

          Oh good, you can cut and paste that for us here, thanks.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.2
          29 May 2015 at 8:50 am

          I think you’re lying, and that no Green MP has given you any details of other MPS domestic power arrangements. So you can easily prove me wrong by naming the MP, gutter boy.

          • Mark Freeman 9.1.1.2.1
            29 May 2015 at 9:08 am

            “23/12/2014
            Hi Mark

            Thanks for your email.

            I understand at least one of our MPs have solar and others are investigating it. I do not believe any have a financial interest in solar suppliers or installers.
            …..”

            I won’t name the MP, it was a private email between him & I and I know you are all big on privacy issues.

            • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1.2.1.1
              29 May 2015 at 9:11 am

              and are you proud to imply that privacy issues aren’t a big deal to you? What a big fucking sociopath.

            • weka 9.1.1.2.1.2
              29 May 2015 at 9:13 am

              I’d like to see the whole email exchange thanks, you can leave out the names/addresses.

              • Mark Freeman …
                29 May 2015 at 9:33 am

                Hi Mark

                Thanks for your email.

                I understand at least one of our MPs have solar and others are investigating it. I do not believe any have a financial interest in solar suppliers or installers.

                I agree the electricity industry is not a fan of solar and I believe are actively discouraging it, that is why I have worked closely with SEANZ over the years to try and push for better rules, like this campaign.

                I disagree with this comment : “Unfortunately the Green Party has shown itself to have little influence in or knowledge of how the Electricity Industry operates, and appears far less concerned with “Green” Issues than it is with promoting failed Ideology and generally nasty Politics.” And wonder if you can explain it further because I have good relationships with various players in the electricity and solar sectors and as an opposition MP have worked hard in the last term to understand the sector and it’s issues and promote cheaper, cleaner power.

                Thanks again for getting in touch and Merry Christmas.

                Cheers
                XXXXXXXXXX

                Sent with Good (www.good.com)

                —–Original Message—–
                From: Mark Freeman [mark@XXXXXXXXXX]
                Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 11:30 AM New Zealand Standard Time
                To: xxxxxxxx
                Subject: Give Solar A Fair Go
                Hi xxxxxxxx

                Thanks for your letter and info regarding this.

                It is a rare thing for me to agree with anything you say at all, but there are one or two points that make sense.

                First a couple of questions for you:

                • How many Green Party MP’s have invested in Solar PV on a personal level? If there are any that haven’t we would be happy to quote on a Commercial Quality System as I believe it should be compulsory for you all to have systems as big as you can possibly fit.
                • Do any Green Party MP’s have a financial interest in any Solar PV Suppliers or Installers?

                The Electricity Industry (understandably enough) is not a fan of Solar Energy – or any Small Scale Distributed Generation, and we see often the Retailers in particular (and sometimes Lines Companies) acting to the very edge of their Legislated obligations to enable Grid Tied self generation. Some extra Regulation may be in order.

                “I am pursuing and discussing these matters with parties that have a real chance to influence in this area.

                Unfortunately the Green Party has shown itself to have little influence in or knowledge of how the Electricity Industry operates, and appears far less concerned with “Green” Issues than it is with promoting failed Ideology and generally nasty Politics. For this reason I suspect it is somewhat pointless supporting your campaign in this matter – as soon as “The Greens” are mentioned to most people wanting Solar PV they seem to switch off and shake their heads.”

                The opinions in Quotation Marks are my own and shouldn’t be seen as the opinion or policy of xxxxxx Ltd.

                Kind Regards,
                Mark Freeman

                • Tracey …
                  29 May 2015 at 9:49 am

                  “promoting… generally nasty Politics.”

                  Examples from statements from Green Party MP’s please.

                • te reo putake …
                  29 May 2015 at 9:55 am

                  This has got to be the least convincing business pitch I’ve seen since Gourmet night at Fawlty Towers. Mark were you seriously expecting people you condemn as nasty, ignorant and irrelevant to buy solar panels off you? Is this how you approach all your potential customers?

                  • weka …
                    29 May 2015 at 10:03 am

                    Looks like a trole email to me.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 May 2015 at 1:20 pm

                      I wonder if the stupid gutter tr*ll used its Sky Solar work email to abuse an MP.

                      Unethical trash like that cause consumer boycotts.

                    • weka …
                      29 May 2015 at 2:11 pm

                      I’m guessing he did (hence the necessity of quotation marks). Pretty big misjudgement of boundaries, as is posting his politics in all there glory here. Crikey.

                      (decent of you to not link).

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      29 May 2015 at 4:23 pm

                      …as soon as “The Greens” are mentioned to most people wanting Solar PV they seem to switch off and shake their heads.

                      Translation: when Mark Freeman from [deleted] runs his mouth about the Greens to potential clients he loses a sale.

                      [Not keen on identifying his employer, OAB. That’s probably a step too far. TRP]

                • weka …
                  29 May 2015 at 10:01 am

                  Thanks. Classic piece of projection re nasty ideology. In the face of that, I’m not even going to respond to the content. The GP’s work historically on solar can stand on its own. You’ve just shown that your own bias and beliefs seriously cloud your judgement, shame you work in the industry, you’re part of the problem.

                  As for the original hate slur, it’s blindingly obvious that individuals can’t change the solar industry by purchasing, which is what the GP were saying decades ago. The bullshit around seelling back to the grid is one of the biggest issues I hear from people considering solar. Lots of barriers in addition to that that can’t be solved by individuals. Which you will be well aware of.

            • te reo putake 9.1.1.2.1.3
              29 May 2015 at 9:16 am

              Wow! Quite a difference between “virtually none” and “at least one”. Thanks for putting your bias out there, Mark.

            • Tracey 9.1.1.2.1.4
              29 May 2015 at 9:47 am

              Do all ACT MP’s send their children to Charter Schools? And national MPs too? Can you ask them for us?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2
      28 May 2015 at 10:29 pm

      What I find puzzling is when right wingers pretend they have ethics.

      • Mark Freeman 9.2.1
        29 May 2015 at 8:34 am

        Proclaiming (over & over) that you have more ethics, or “care” more than others does not make it so. In fact it can easily be seen to show the opposite.

        • Colonial Rawshark 9.2.1.1
          29 May 2015 at 8:40 am

          OK so a right winger then. Seriously in that case, why do you even care?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.2
          29 May 2015 at 8:42 am

          Proclaiming your petty schoolboy bile against Green MPs can easily be seen to reveal your low character. Why don’t you lift your game, gutter boy?

          • Mark Freeman 9.2.1.2.1
            29 May 2015 at 9:30 am

            It appears that the strain of plummeting Polls and an increasing number of failed “hits” on the increasingly popular & successful Govt is getting to you. Take a chill pill & smell the roses. The vast majority of NZ’ers are doing really well, are healthy & happy. I know it must hurt that your beloved Ideology is failing everywhere..but just think of the children for once.

            • weka 9.2.1.2.1.1
              29 May 2015 at 9:32 am

              Ah, trole mode now.

            • Tracey 9.2.1.2.1.2
              29 May 2015 at 9:53 am

              wow, just wow given you wrote this only 55 minutes before

              “Proclaiming (over & over) that you have more ethics, or “care” more than others does not make it so. In fact it can easily be seen to show the opposite.”

            • Corokia 9.2.1.2.1.3
              29 May 2015 at 10:49 am

              “think of the children for once”- duh- it’s National who are the short term thinkers and completely fucking ignore the future.

              • weka …
                29 May 2015 at 1:07 pm

                I took that phrase to be extreme sarcasm, which fits with the nasty ideology stuff.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.2.1.4
              29 May 2015 at 1:11 pm

              😆

              Why don’t you have any ethics, gutter boy?

              • Mark Freeman …
                30 May 2015 at 6:03 pm

                What a charming bunch of responses, but entirely missing the point.
                I’m not really sure where any abuse was involved in the email communication, or (from me) here – most people would think it a fairly relevant point to note that our Green MP’s are underwhemingly supportive of Solar on a personal level. Maybe they can’t afford it, maybe they want their apparent energy ethics to be subsidised by those who don’t have the physical pre-requisites or financial resources to benefit from the technology.
                Anyways, keep up the hating & dodge the issues – I thought some here would support a NZ business using local Inverter technology, installing exclusively panels from a company & country with strong environmental & employment credentials, and paying well above your cherished ‘living wage”. They’re my ethics & contribution OAB..much higher & more positive than yours by all accounts.
                If anyone wants a discussion on Solar PV , feel free to respond…The Standard surprisingly appears not the place for informative, positive, rational or adult discourse on the subject – whereas last time I looked even WO was.
                Who’d have guessed…

                • weka …
                  30 May 2015 at 6:14 pm

                  I can think of many valid reasons why the GP MPs might not have solar. But interestingly, my experience with debating hard core righties (of which I am sure you are one) is that they often have very limited imaginations, and so find it very hard to put themselves in other people’s shoes. Either that or they’re disingenuously manipulating the debate to serve their own ideology.

                  I find it hard to believe that you are unaware of the falsehoods about the GP you put in your email, but then I do get surprised about the level of consciousness of some people.

                  You are right of course, if you can’t handle being called out on your politics and behaviour, you are much better off at WO.

                  • Mark Freeman …
                    30 May 2015 at 9:03 pm

                    Falsehoods? You mean my comments clearly to be read as opinion in an email responding to a mass communication ( and addressed to the Company which I am an integral part of)
                    Poor response Weka – your preconceptions, insults and prejudice only weaken any argument or intellectual /moral superiority you and your gang claim.
                    As an advocate (apologist) for your political heroes how about you try to argue why they don’t have Solar? -I’ve put up a couple of points as to why they should..and I’d love to assist them or anyone who wants to get into it for whatever reasons.

                    • Colonial Rawshark …
                      30 May 2015 at 9:34 pm

                      hey Mark, solar PV is a shitty technology which cannot scale to serve the needs of a nation.

                      We have to reduce our carbon foot print in NZ as well as getting off fossil fuels, and your focus on irrelevancies is not helpful.

                    • weka …
                      31 May 2015 at 12:32 am

                      “Falsehoods? You mean my comments clearly to be read as opinion in an email responding to a mass communication ( and addressed to the Company which I am an integral part of)”

                      No I mean your assertions of ‘fact’ that have no back up.

                      “As an advocate (apologist) for your political heroes how about you try to argue why they don’t have Solar?”

                      Because you are trole here for the rhetoric and I can’t be bothered.

                      eg,

                      “Poor response Weka – your preconceptions, insults and prejudice only weaken any argument or intellectual /moral superiority you and your gang claim.”

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  31 May 2015 at 8:21 am

                  I doubt you have the slightest input into the ethics of the Chinese franchise that employs you: the limitations of your role are made plain on the website.

                  • Mark Freeman …
                    31 May 2015 at 10:56 am

                    Wow..with skills & comprehension like that you are wasted here – shouldn’t you be a researcher for the Labour Party? Or maybe you are just being wilfully dishonest…again.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      31 May 2015 at 11:17 am

                      Nope, I honestly doubt your honesty.

                      That’s because you’re so stupid you used a company email address to insult an MP. Derp.

  10. Corokia 10
    28 May 2015 at 8:10 pm

    “What will the Nats do?”
    More dairy according to Nathan Guy in June last year.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/better-business/invest-in-dairy/10089963/Dairy-farming-in-NZ-the-politicians-views

    “However, National is bullish about its “ambitious plans” to grow the dairy sector and says it is a big part of its plans to double primary exports by 2025.”

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.

  11. les 11
    28 May 2015 at 10:09 pm

    fuck dairy,other commodities and real productive enterprise..lets reheat the ‘Switzerland of the pacific ‘ idea ,first to see the sun and make markets!Banking,paper shuffling and tax shelters is the real deal!

  12. millsy 12
    28 May 2015 at 11:39 pm

    We should be exporting kiwi ingenuity. Get a lot more coin from that, and clean air as well.

    Building a spaceport in the Mackenzie Basin rather than more dairy farms sounds like the way forward.

    Farming is still going to be a large part of this economy, but we need a few other things in the mix as well.

    I would support a biotech industry in this country but I think we would end up having everything in the hands of Monsanto.

    • Colonial Rawshark 12.1
      28 May 2015 at 11:41 pm

      Well, we’re smart enough to export our ingenuity in dairy farming and sheep farming; I am sure this is going to end well for us.

    • John 12.2
      29 May 2015 at 12:41 am

      Reality check.

      A great company built on Kiwi ingenuity – Scott Technology – is laying people off this week.

      Some of our biotech companies are some of the worst performing on the NZX. Blis listed at 73c, now down to 2c,

      Our green tech companies are probably the worst performing sector on the NZX (Windflow $4.00 down to 5c, NZ windfarms peaked at $4,00 now down to 5c, Wellington Drive Technologies $3.00 down to 3c etc).

      The Greens often spout hot air that we should be raking it in in the Green Technology sector, yet ignore the fact that our many of our biggest best green companies are failing.

      The technology moves so fast that there’s no time to get a return on huge R&D costs. For example Energy Mad has spent millions of dollars and years of work into developing energy efficient light bulbs, which are now suddenly obsolete because of LED technology.

      Meanwhile our companies are trying to compete with massive overseas companies with 100,000 workers that have the best and brightest people on the planet, that have been working on green technology for over a century.

      And even with these huge companies, the green tech sector has been one of the worst sectors to invest in over the last decade. On average, shares in the world’s major green tech companies are worth barely half what they were ten years ago.

      As a percentage of world GDP, manufacturing has nearly halved since the 1970s. Which is why its delusional to look at manufacturing as some golden goose – a declining sector, in the worst located country in the world to try to make products for the world.

      Equally delusional is the idea that the govt can force private companies start up and invest in sectors they are not currently in, have no experience in, and compete successfully against much larger and more experienced companies who are closer to the markets.

      At best, the govt can do some minor nudging.

      Yes, we need to diversify where we can, but the green job revolution that some of the Greens want the govt to sink money into, fails to recognise the sectors they want to invest in – green tech and biotech – are pretty much the two very worst performing sectors to invest in in NZ.

      • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1
        29 May 2015 at 7:16 am

        Making a profit isn’t why we should be producing a green economy. Being able to maintain our economy in a sustainable fashion is.

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.2
        29 May 2015 at 8:32 am

        But banking is going so well John!

        No matter how bad the real economy gets, the banks manage to extract $4B or ore in profits out of NZ businesses and households!

        Isn’t banking and finance such a wonderful ‘industry’? Look how many electronic ones and zeroes you can make even as the rest of the real economy we live in tanks!!!

        • John 12.2.2.1
          29 May 2015 at 4:15 pm

          If you don’t like the big four banks profits you have a choice – don’t use them.

          Nobody is forced to use one of the big four banks.

          Or, if they are as profitable as you say, you could buying shares in them. You’ll then find that you make around 5% dividend per year, taxed to 3.5%.

          Or you could just whinge about them for your whole life but do nothing.

          I took the second option and bought shares, but not because they are some golden goose – they’re not. Compared to other investments they’re at best, average.

          But I’m prepared to give up better returns to get more diversification into one more sector, albeit with solid but low returns.

          • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.2.1.1
            29 May 2015 at 4:39 pm

            If you don’t like the big four banks profits you have a choice – don’t use them.

            You’ve thoroughly missed the point. Which is that the banks are highly extractive parasites, sucking $4B out of NZ businesses and households a year, and pumping that money overseas.

            Why do you accept that loss to the country so breezily, John?

            • John 12.2.2.1.1.1
              29 May 2015 at 5:08 pm

              Because Kiwis are RECEIVING billions of dollars in returns from overseas companies, including banks.

              Kiwis have $140 billion in bank deposits, so if they were getting an average of 3% interest, there’s $4.2 billion in interest alone.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                29 May 2015 at 5:21 pm

                John, are you able to add and subtract? The banks remove $4B pa NETT out of NZ. It’s what they call “profit” extracted out of NZ households and Kiwi businesess. Are you OK with this? Why?

              • McFlock …
                29 May 2015 at 5:26 pm

                John doesn’t understand the concept of profit.

                If their expenses are $b a year in interest payments to depositors, and they take $4b a year overseas in profit, that means that they must make at least $8b a year in lending and speculation, more if you include taxes.

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.3
        29 May 2015 at 8:42 am

        John, if you don’t think that NZ belongs on the world stage amongst leading developed nations, just say so.

        Then get the fuck out of political discourse because you don’t deserve to be here.

      • Corokia 12.2.4
        29 May 2015 at 8:46 am

        The recent events at Contact energy show how sharemarket investors don’t think long term. Performance on the stock market is not the only way to measure whether or not something is a good idea.

        I put this quote on open mike on Tuesday. The chief executive of Contact Denis Barnes, said he thinks there is great long term opportunity in renewables “ but the most value we can add is by finding resource and developing that resource and that takes many, many years, you know something like 5 to 7 years from when you first come across an opportunity to where you might be earning money from it”

        If everything is funded by the private market and that is all made up of short term thinking capitalists (such as idiots like this who think 5-7 years is ‘many, many years FFS!) then it’s not surprising we are screwed is it.

        • weka 12.2.4.1
          29 May 2015 at 9:11 am

          Contact should also stop trying to develop power generation in ways that the locals don’t like. I’d hazard a guess that Contact has lost a lot of money trying to develop sites where there was substantial objection. Even if it’s renewable generation, it’s not Green tech if you impose something on communities and create environmental problems. Not just Contact either. Would love to see a cost analysis of failed projects.

        • John 12.2.4.2
          29 May 2015 at 4:30 pm

          Corokia says ” (such as idiots like this who think 5-7 years is ‘many, many years FFS!) ”

          Different investors in different circumstances have different time frames, so 5-7 years IS long term for many people, and short term for others.

          So say an investor is an idiot to think 5-7 years is long term, without even knowing what their circumstance is, is idiotic in itself.

          The problem with Contact is they promised shareholders they would pay out more of their profits, then they reneged and said they would invest overseas in geothermal.

          So apart from deceiving shareholders, they were going to go into an area that a/ they had little expertise in, and b/ into
          a sector that companies who did have expertise, were getting out of because projects were turning into huge money sink holes.

          • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.4.2.1
            29 May 2015 at 4:34 pm

            That’s odd, I thought you Righties always thought that the private sector was superbly efficient and that fiscal discipline rules the day.

            • John 12.2.4.2.1.1
              29 May 2015 at 5:25 pm

              You should learn that if you pigeonhole people, you’ll end up regularly making wrong assumptions.

              There’s certainly plenty of examples of the private sector being much more efficient that govt, but there’s also there’s plenty of examples of the private sector stuffing up.

              (and I’ve voted left far more times than right)

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                29 May 2015 at 5:37 pm

                You don’t seem concerned with the privatisation of NZ assets and the huge extraction of moneys out of NZ by corporations, which is why I picked you as being right wing.

                • John …
                  29 May 2015 at 5:44 pm

                  The government through ACC the the super fund buy AND sell billions of dollars of assets every year.

                  So I find it financially ignorant to be overly concerned only about selling one particular type of asset, but not others.

                  I’ve also bought and sold electricity assets a number of times over the years.

                  So to have a rule of never ever selling a particular asset class regardless of whether you’d be better off with the money elsewhere, is an incredibly stupid way to invest.

      • weka 12.2.5
        29 May 2015 at 8:59 am

        “The technology moves so fast that there’s no time to get a return on huge R&D costs. For example Energy Mad has spent millions of dollars and years of work into developing energy efficient light bulbs, which are now suddenly obsolete because of LED technology.”

        If you are talking about CFL bulbs, they were always only going to be an interim tech, because of their inherent pollution issues, and because LED technology was following fast behind it. There’s nothing sudden about the obsolescence, LED as the tech we would need in the future has been around for a long time.

        Many greenies and other sustainability people never considered CFLs that green anyway. It’s probably a good example of what happens when you leave development of tech to private companies.

        As for the difficulty of green tech initiatives, there is a world of difference in trying to do that with governments that are at best ambivalent about them, or in the current situation outright against them, and governments that are highly supportive. If Labour or National had supported the Green Party initiatives on solar, which were designed to kick start the industry in NZ, we would be a decade ahead of where we are now. The situation we are in now is mindnumbingly stupid and predictable, and every year we wait is another lost opportunity to mitigate CC and prepare for the coming crises.

    • David 12.3
      1 June 2015 at 7:38 pm

      “Building a spaceport in the Mackenzie Basin rather than more dairy farms sounds like the way forward”

      What;s stopping you?

  13. John 13
    29 May 2015 at 4:01 pm

    All we would have if we’d all gone solar a decade ago is expensive solar panels that cost 300% more than they do today, a bit debt, and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on them.

    All so we could replace our renewable energy with renewable energy.

    You say LED technology has been around a long time, but two years ago there were no LED household bulbs in my local DIY store.
    A year ago they came in and cost over $20 each.
    Today I can get one for $6.

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.1
      29 May 2015 at 4:10 pm

      The time to transition to a low energy society is upon us, as your comment notes.

    • weka 13.2
      29 May 2015 at 4:13 pm

      I’m saying that LEDs have been on the horizon for a long time as the preferable emerging tech. Anyone banking on CFLs as staying dominant in the long term wasn’t paying attention.

      “All we would have if we’d all gone solar a decade ago is expensive solar panels that cost 300% more than they do today, a bit debt, and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on them.”

      That doesn’t make any sense.

      “All so we could replace our renewable energy with renewable energy.”

      No, we’d be replacing our fossil fuel generation and reducing it to zero. We’d also be able to increase overall generation capacity without building new dams where they’re not wanted or needed.

  14. John 14
    29 May 2015 at 4:55 pm

    No – pretty much all the power for where I live, in fact the whole South Island – comes from renewable, so we’d be getting a government subsidy to replace renewable energy with renewable energy – that’s nuts.

    And a total waste of precious taxpayer funds.

    There are many, many better ways to spend taxpayer money.

    I’m not against solar, and have looked at it several times before, but it doesn’t stack up.

    I can get a better annual return off any number of investments, and 25 years later I’ve still got the investment (probably worth much more) instead of a worn out solar system that’s worth nothing.

    So it replaces renewable with renewable, gets a lower annual return, and after 25 years my initial investment has disappeared – that’s a lose / lose / lose situation.

    • millsy 14.1
      29 May 2015 at 10:41 pm

      To bad New Zealanders are paying through the nose for that renewable energy, all so people like you can get higher and higher dividends.

      • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1
        29 May 2015 at 10:50 pm

        Idiots like John don’t believe in real world economics, they believe in financialised sums. It’s moronic. If Manapouri were being proposed today, he’d slam it as a waste of tax payers money.

        • John 14.1.1.1
          29 May 2015 at 11:57 pm

          Clyde Dam today is worth only a quarter of what it cost to build over 20 years ago – morons like you think that’s good value for taxpayers.

      • John 14.1.2
        30 May 2015 at 12:18 am

        Please let me know where I can get these higher and higher dividends Contact Energy shares currently cost $6.20 and they earn 23 cents per share per year – that’s 3.8%.

        And 8 years ago when I sold my Contact Shares, they were worth $8. So if you add up all the dividends over that time, added to the share price, sticking your cash under your mattress would have given a better return.

        If you paid the real price for power coming out of Clyde Dam that reflected the cost to build it, you’d be paying 400% more than you do now.

        • Clemgeopin 14.1.2.1
          30 May 2015 at 1:17 am

          A few stupid thoughts for the money changers to think about:

          * Greed, and the love of money and power is the root of all evil.

          * ‘For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’

          * How Much Land Does a Man Need?

          “Ah, what a fine fellow!” exclaimed the Chief. “He has gained
          much land!”

          Pahom’s servant came running up and tried to raise him, but he saw
          that blood was flowing from his mouth. Pahom was dead!
          The Bashkirs clicked their tongues to show their pity.

          His servant picked up the spade and dug a grave long enough for
          Pahom to lie in, and buried him in it. Six feet from his head to his heels was all he needed.
          Ref: http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2738/

  15. millsy 15
    30 May 2015 at 12:53 am

    Sometimes, John, there others returns that matter more than dividends and returns on investment. We wouldnt have half the stuff we have now if it had to make a profit or pay a dividend.