Daily Review 15/11/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 15th, 2017 - 72 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

72 comments on “Daily Review 15/11/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    15 November 2017 at 6:06 pm

    McConnell is now talking about expelling Moore if he wins. Last count-up I saw had 13 Repug senators saying expel him if he wins, so they would still need 6 more. Unless Dems decide to “respect the will of Alabama voters” and vote to keep Moore in the Senate to keep tainting Repugs with his stench.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/moore-senate-republicans-expulsion-244907

    Expulsion wouldn’t actually be that bad an option for Repugs. Presumably the Repug Alabama governor just appoints a new temporary Repug senator, then there might be another special election next year which another Repug will win. Or maybe the appointed replacement just serves out the remainder of Sessions’ term until 2020.

    That would still be better for the Repugs than a Democrat winning the seat and holding it until 2020

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    15 November 2017 at 6:40 pm

    Zimbabwe army seizes state TV but denies coup ongoing

    Zimbabwe’s military has seized state TV and blocked off access to government offices.

    In a televised address early on Wednesday morning a military spokesperson said the army was seeking to “pacify a degenerating, social, and economic situation” in the country.

    The spokesperson denied that the army was carrying out a coup against President Robert Mugabe’s government and said the leader was safe..

    More soon…

    So, if a coup is going on how is Western MSM and leaders going present it?

    They all got rather upset when the Fijian coup happened (although they seem to have got over that now).

  3. James 3
    15 November 2017 at 7:01 pm

    A labour minister says they will absolutely do something – just wait for the afternoon and another will backpedal on it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11944434

    • BM 3.1
      15 November 2017 at 7:09 pm

      Parliment will be clown college for the next three years, fuck these people are idiots, I’m suspecting there’s some serious buyers remorse at the moment.

      Be interesting to see the next political poll, I reckon the veneer has come off the golden girl and the cheap MDF is starting to show, the voters are feeling a bit duped.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1
        15 November 2017 at 7:11 pm

        The main thing for you to remember is to keep being bitter and angry. Voters respond to that.

      • marty mars 3.1.2
        15 November 2017 at 7:16 pm

        Yes loser bm opposition is hell lol

      • patricia bremner 3.1.3
        15 November 2017 at 7:28 pm

        Oh yes BM, all these people having buyer remorse!!! Who is celebrating??
        people looking for a pay rise, parents looking for time with their baby, buyers looking for affordable homes, those wanting light rail, those wanting climate change action, those wanting a say in protecting DOC areas from mining, those wanting fairer welfare rules, those wanting trade agreements, and jobs, those looking for reparations after calamities, and those seeking warnings of danger……… I know I have missed a few…… Oh those wanting decent Public broadcasting.
        A prime minister telling us what is happening “in her own words”.

        • chris73 3.1.3.1
          15 November 2017 at 7:33 pm

          How about those that protested the TPPA, are they celebrating? How about the Kermadec sanctuary, any people celebrating that?

          • patricia bremner 3.1.3.1.1
            15 November 2017 at 8:24 pm

            No Chris, but neither is finalised yet, or in the 100 days.

          • mickysavage 3.1.3.1.2
            15 November 2017 at 8:27 pm

            Kermadec is complex. I am really relaxed. TPPA? It is a lot better. And at least Jacinda is doing something about Manus. When you are in power every day is a series of decisions and potential compromises …

            How do you feel about National’s compromises? There is a whole lot of stuff there to digest …

    • Draco T Bastard 3.2
      15 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

      Pretty sure that wasn’t even Labour policy but National’s. Which just makes me think, again, that Nash is in the wrong bloody party.

    • Muttonbird 3.3
      15 November 2017 at 7:17 pm

      Collins needs to explain just what these tariffs are on goods under $400.00 and how that makes an impact on Customs’ ability to do their job. She seems to be suggesting that Customs can only operate because of tariff protection?

      Nash is right. The Nats did nothing on this and the law is the same as it was before internet shopping became a thing.

      Every purchase in NZ should have a GST or equivalent levy if the goods come from overseas. Easy to administer – the courier collects the money at the time of delivery or in the case of Netflix and co it’s added to their fee and they must remunerate the NZ government.

      • chris73 3.3.1
        15 November 2017 at 7:25 pm

        Judith Collins needs to do no such thing, shes in the opposition, its her job to oppose. Labour need to make it difficult for National to oppose by doing what they said they’d do.

        • BM 3.3.1.1
          15 November 2017 at 7:29 pm

          So true, poor old lefties haven’t worked that one out yet, they’re all standing around holding their willies and looking completely lost.

          • Muttonbird 3.3.1.1.1
            15 November 2017 at 7:39 pm

            One thing I’ve noticed about RWNJs is their hatred of Kiwi workers. Being cheapskates by definition they want everything for cheap regardless of the conditions it places NZ workers under. A loss-making Uber they’ll take. Tax-free shopping they’ll take.

            A courier left a package at the door for me today. It was a USD55 item not manufactured in NZ which I’d ordered from the States. Couriers should have eft-pos like the local curry place does and I’d quite happily have paid the GST amount at the point of delivery.

            It’s not hard but the Nats, and their media, and their cat-kicking hangers on seem to think it is.

            • BM 3.3.1.1.1.1
              15 November 2017 at 7:44 pm

              You’re mention cat kicking a lot, dude we all know you’ve got anger issues, don’t take your weakness out on the family pet, get help.

        • Muttonbird 3.3.1.2
          15 November 2017 at 7:30 pm

          She’s irrelevant and won’t see government again. Her past will catch up with her.

      • DoublePlusGood 3.3.2
        16 November 2017 at 1:05 am

        No purchases in NZ should have GST whatsoever, because we should get rid of GST.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    15 November 2017 at 7:40 pm

    Technology invading nearly all U.S. jobs, even lower skilled: study

    The report underscores the growing need for workers of all types to gain digital skills and explains why many employers say they struggle to fill jobs, including many that in the past required few digital skills. There is anxiety about automation displacing workers and in many cases, new digital tools allow one worker to do work previously done by several.

    Those 545 occupations reflect 90 percent of all jobs in the economy. The report found that jobs with greater digital content tend to pay more and are increasingly concentrated in traditional high-tech centers like Silicon Valley, Seattle and Austin, Texas.

    This highlights two points:

    1. That we need the training available so that people can be retrained and/or upskilled. Considering how NZ businesses are responding to ‘lack of skills’ in NZ we can be assured they’re not going to do anything about it.
    2. Productivity is already so high that there isn’t enough work for everyone and that this trend will continue.

    At the other extreme are jobs like those done by Steve Engle, a 53-year-old factory worker at Cummins Inc’s (CMI.N) engine plant in Seymour, Indiana.

    One of his tasks is to insert 56 bolts on the flywheel housing of each engine as it moves down the line and tighten the bolts in a certain sequence. He now uses a tool that is connected to a computer screen, which guides him to the right bolt and will not allow him to tighten the wrong one. It also knows exactly when the bolt is tight enough and then stops.

    “This tool won’t let me do it wrong,” he said.

    I’m actually amazed that they’ve still got him there.

    • AB 4.1
      15 November 2017 at 8:52 pm

      “I’m actually amazed that they’ve still got him there.”
      Ditto – and they probably won’t for much longer. They’re just making sure it all hangs together before waving him goodbye and thanking him for his 20+ years of ‘passion’ and ‘commitment’.

  5. Draco T Bastard 5
    15 November 2017 at 8:55 pm

    ‘Mum’s the word’: The online influencers secretly paid to go on 1News

    TVNZ has pulled a story about Kmart from its site after The Spinoff obtained emails showing two online ‘influencers’ received undisclosed payments to appear. The revelations raise fresh questions about the murky and unregulated world of the influencer economy.

    The headline is bad as it implies that 1Newz paid but they didn’t. 1News didn’t actually know that they’d been paid.

    This article shows that regulation and transparency is needed. Further, it shows again that before any product that goes on sale it needs to be regulated first. The market cannot operate as a free-for-all.

    • marty mars 5.1
      15 November 2017 at 11:17 pm

      Interesting and both those bloggers lied about being paid when directly asked – what nice people not. This is the legacy of keyster and billshitter – they are directly responsible for liars like this who think they can get away with it.. Sad.

    • Exkiwiforces 6.1
      15 November 2017 at 10:50 pm

      As I said over at the open mike thread, If Mugabe still has support of the his infamous North Korean trained 5th Brigade and his Presidential Guard then things will get very interesting and if he hasn’t then it’s all over red rover unless he can talk his way out of it so he can in exile.

      The other two questions are:
      What’s China’s position on the coup as they have been propping up the regime so have a lot to lose and the other is,
      What the position of the Commonwealth whatever way this goes?

      I’ve a few other comments over at the open mike and a few links to further reading from Ian Smith’s UDI to the current events atm.

        • Exkiwiforces 6.1.1.1
          15 November 2017 at 11:46 pm

          What I found strange is the Zimbabwe Army are using the same camouflage pattern uniform of the old Rhodesian Military Forces.

      • Graeme 6.1.2
        16 November 2017 at 7:04 am

        Looks like China knew all about it before hand.

        ” The transition came just days after Zimbabwean military chief General Constantino Chiwenga visited Beijing.”

        http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2120091/bloodless-takeover-wont-dampen-chinese-investment

        • Exkiwiforces 6.1.2.1
          16 November 2017 at 10:15 am

          Now’s that very interesting indeed, doesn’t like other countries sticking it noses into China’s internal affairs, but is more than happy to stick it nose into Zimbabwe’s internal affairs and into other countries affairs. The Red Dragon is learning fast from the Western powers.

          • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2.1.1
            16 November 2017 at 10:50 am

            China’s been taking lessons from the US. Get powerful both militarily and economically and then you can do whatever the fuck you want.

            We should be taking lessons from that as well and building up our own military and economy. That’s going to mean developing and producing our own weapons of war and diversifying our economy so that we’re no longer dependent upon imports.

            It is not viable for us to maintain the belief that the world is all nice and that no one would attack us:

            But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

            But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

            The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

    • millsy 6.2
      15 November 2017 at 11:02 pm

      Seems like this is more of a struggle between factions in the ruling party than an attempt to overthrow Mugabe.

      It also seems like that Mugabe is closer to death than we think.

      We shall see anyway.

      • Exkiwiforces 6.2.1
        15 November 2017 at 11:53 pm

        Yes Millsy, it appears that way for the time being atm, but how long before it last and spills over into some sort of civil war? And there is no doubt that will be some old scores to settle if goes the way of civil war.

  7. Nic the NZer 7
    15 November 2017 at 10:28 pm

    The robots are coming to take all the jobs, the robots are coming to take all the jobs!

    Turns out this narrative started already more than 50 years ago in 1960.
    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=37361

    I see I might have replied this to comment #4.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      16 November 2017 at 11:02 am

      Yep. It’s a concern as to how we handle ever increasing automation but the automation itself should be seen as a positive. Automating a job out of existence or just increasing productivity so that fewer people are required to do the same job should be seen as a success as it allows the economy to develop in other ways if the support is there for it to do so. like that article says:

      The Commission noted that unemployment was largely the result of inadequate total spending and that the Government had the tools at its disposal to eliminate it. They considered that there would be workers (low-skill etc) who would suffer more displacement from technology than those with more skill etc, but that ultimately even those workers would be able to get jobs if the public deficit was large enough. Instead, they recommended (among other things) the introduction of a Job Guarantee (Public Service Employment) financed by the Federal government but administered at all levels of government. It would pay the Federal minimum wage and be available on demand.

      Doing that, though, does require removing the ability of the private banks to create money. It also needs the acceptance that it is government spending that is the driver of the economy.

      • Nic the NZer 7.1.1
        16 November 2017 at 11:28 am

        “Doing that, though, does require removing the ability of the private banks to create money”

        Not at all, it didn’t require this in the 60’s when this issue was largely sensibly addressed and it doesn’t today (in fact its even easier since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement). All that is needed is for the government to get a grip on its economic ideology and stop believing unemployment is unavoidable and necessary.

        It would help to achieve this if commentary frequently pointed out that the unemployment rate is always able to be reduced by the government, as long as it wants that outcome.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1
          16 November 2017 at 12:12 pm

          Not at all, it didn’t require this in the 60’s when this issue was largely sensibly addressed

          And which came to an end in the 1970s because of massive amounts of stagflation seemingly caused by too much money being created but then put only into shares rather than productive use. Same as today’s housing bubble in fact.

          in fact its even easier since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement

          It would be nice if the governments of the world realised that the Bretton Woods Agreement had come to an end when the US unilaterally dropped the Gold Standard in 1971. And that with them doing so the world no longer had a Reserve Currency.

          • Nic the NZer 7.1.1.1.1
            16 November 2017 at 12:34 pm

            The inflation in the 1970’s came about because of OPEC’s politically motivated Oil price hikes. Your explanation is basically an extension of monetarism, but this theory was entirely bankrupt at its inception. Inflation is simply not correlated with the money supply in the way implied there.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1.1
              16 November 2017 at 12:53 pm

              The inflation in the 1970’s came about because of OPEC’s politically motivated Oil price hikes.

              That was certainly part of it but the problems started back in the 1960s.

              Your explanation is basically an extension of monetarism, but this theory was entirely bankrupt at its inception. Inflation is simply not correlated with the money supply in the way implied there.

              There’s some logic behind it. If we paid everyone a million per week we wouldn’t all suddenly be able to afford new yachts and houses – the prices would adjust for the new normal.

              We don’t see the printing of money having a correlation in general prices. But what we do see is price bubbles in sharemarkets and housing as those who can, and do, grab all the new money for themselves. Those people are few and don’t spend any more per week on their groceries as everyone else and so we see general price stability while the poor are priced out of housing and become poorer and poorer as the house owners put the rental up to get higher returns from people who aren’t getting any of that new money.

              • Nic the NZer …
                16 November 2017 at 3:35 pm

                “There’s some logic behind it.”
                No matter how much logic is behind it you still need to demonstrate this is how the world actually functions for any scientific theory to be acceptable. That is totally missing from this example, though you did provide a little contrary evidence “We don’t see the printing of money having a correlation in general prices”.

                There is also a significant problem with the direction of causation which you could get out, because if (for whatever reason) prices are raised on purchased goods then we know for certain that the money supply will have adjusted already to make those purchases.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  16 November 2017 at 4:42 pm

                  No matter how much logic is behind it you still need to demonstrate this is how the world actually functions for any scientific theory to be acceptable.

                  There is strong evidence that excessive money printing has inflationary effects but it’s mostly in house and share prices. The reason why we’re not seeing general price increases from all the massive creation of money is because the money isn’t going to the majority of people.

                  But that massive increase in small areas of the market (market bubbles) is most definitely increasing poverty for those that don’t have access to that massive money increase.

                  There is also a significant problem with the direction of causation which you could get out, because if (for whatever reason) prices are raised on purchased goods then we know for certain that the money supply will have adjusted already to make those purchases.

                  If all else remains the same then the amount of money would make no difference as the price would be relative.

                  The problem is that the way the system is only a few people have access to the massive printing machines. And only a few more have direct access to the money created. These few can push high inflation in a couple of small areas and say that things are going well while the majority of people, glad that general inflation is low, become poorer as housing is pushed out of their reach and the ability to innovate is removed from them as they no longer have access to the resources necessary because a few people are very very rich from controlling the money supply.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    16 November 2017 at 5:22 pm

                    “If all else remains the same then the amount of money would make no difference as the price would be relative.”

                    Clearly when I said that for some reason there was an increase in prices we are no longer discussing a situation where all else remains the same. and relative to what?

                    There is a much better correlation between inflation and capacity utilization rates rather than looking at the money supply changes.

                    http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/04/money-banking-part-11-inflation.html

                    “One may doubt that the causality goes from M to P given the strong assumptions required for that to be the case.”

                    e.g Do you actually believe in these rational economic units ?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      17 November 2017 at 1:29 pm

                      Most ‘Wealth’ Isn’t the Result of Hard Work. It Has Been Accumulated by Being Idle and Unproductive.

                      Last week The Times reported that during the past three months alone, baby boomers converted £850 million of housing wealth into cash using equity release products – the highest number since records began. A third used the money to buy cars, while more than a quarter used it to fund holidays. Others are choosing to buy more property: the Chartered Institute of Housing has describedhow the buy-to-let market is being fuelled by older households using their housing wealth to buy more property, renting it out to those who are unable to get a foot on the property ladder. And it is here that we find the dark side of the housing boom.

                      That money was created by the private banks. Do you think that such a huge increase in prices would have been viable without that?

                      There’s two points:
                      1. An increase in the amount of money available will prices up
                      2. Because the distribution of the new money is constrained to only a few you see specific inflation (i.e, house price increases) rather than general inflation (an increase in the CPI).

                      We are seeing inflation from an excess of money creation and that money creation is from the private banks, ergo, we need to stop the private banks from creating money.

                      And I’ve been saying for a long time that the assumptions that underlie modern economics are bunk.

      • Nic the NZer 7.1.2
        17 November 2017 at 3:45 pm

        “An increase in the amount of money available will prices up”

        Of course when prices go up there is (typically) an increase in the amount of money available. The same goes for incomes when they go up too. Unless you have a good argument for the causality going both directions this doesn’t explain anything causally.

        On the other hand I think if some banks had been failing to make various payments that would be called a financial crisis. Probably won’t see the RBNZ causing any of those.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1
          17 November 2017 at 7:14 pm

          Of course when prices go up there is (typically) an increase in the amount of money available.

          So which is it?

          Does an increase in money result in higher prices or not? I’m saying it does and seem to be saying both.

          • Nic the NZer 7.1.2.1.1
            17 November 2017 at 7:20 pm

            Its the one you just quoted, definitely. Thats what banks create money on demand means.

            I’m not saying both I’m saying an increase in money can’t be demonstrated to *cause* an increase in prices. But causality definitely happens in the other direction.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.1.1.1
              18 November 2017 at 2:28 pm

              I’m not saying both I’m saying an increase in money can’t be demonstrated to *cause* an increase in prices.

              Except that I’ve linked to a couple of pieces that shows that it does cause increases in house and share prices. This limited range of those price increases seems to be because of the limited number of people the new money is going to.

              • Nic the NZer …
                18 November 2017 at 3:46 pm

                Your links make no arguments about the *cause* of the house price increases.

                You also said,
                “And I’ve been saying for a long time that the assumptions that underlie modern economics are bunk.”
                but you continue to defend one of the most central assumptions of mainstream economics. You need to produce evidence (or at least an argument) that changes in M are causing changes in P for this to be anything more than an assumption.

                On the other hand we can see every time somebody makes purchases on their credit card (or based on other forms of lending) how changes in P are causing changes in M.

                The key distinction between your claim and mine being if P will increase as M increases *even in the absence of changes in demand*, which would be consistent with changes in M causing changes in P. I don’t think that can be demonstrated. On the other hand some of the more recent changes in the economy have seen higher demand for houses and shares and that appears to have driven those prices up.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  18 November 2017 at 4:13 pm

                  The key distinction between your claim and mine being if P will increase as M increases *even in the absence of changes in demand*, which would be consistent with changes in M causing changes in P. I don’t think that can be demonstrated.
                  I think what can be demonstrated is that some special prices are rising greater than the rise in demand and that those special prices are rising because of the banks ability to create money. The rise in prices also allows the banks to create more money as speculators bank on the unearned income available from house and price shares increasing.

                  Effectively, we have an inflationary spiral fuelled by the banks ability to create money.

                  The key distinction between your claim and mine being if P will increase as M increases *even in the absence of changes in demand*, which would be consistent with changes in M causing changes in P. I don’t think that can be demonstrated.

                  Will the rent increases that come about because of National’s increase in Accommodation Supplement be because of increased demand or because of the expectation of more money being available?

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    18 November 2017 at 4:49 pm

                    “Will the rent increases that come about because of National’s increase in Accommodation Supplement be because of increased demand or because of the expectation of more money being available?”

                    If the government buys accomodation supplement that is an anticipated increase in demand, obviously.