Open Mike 01/10/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, October 1st, 2016 - 185 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

openmikeOpen mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

185 comments on “Open Mike 01/10/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. cricklewood 1
    1 October 2016 at 6:34 am

    Thinking about the defamation case I can see how the jury reached their verdict as it were.
    If you you are pretty much disengaged with politics (As many in NZ are with the possible exception of voting every three years) it’s highly likely you had never heard of Jordan Williams and only been vaguely aware of Colin Craig.
    It would be very easy to decide that the massive mail out was the over response of a rich man effectively trying to destroy someone who had drawn attention to his less than ideal conduct. I suspect the jury felt it was an unfair over reaction from Craig and defamatory in that it brought Jordan Williams to the direct attention of 1.6million households calling him a liar when they vast majority would know nothing of him.
    Obviously if you follow politics closely you would say that Craig had not defamed Williams based on his past behaviour the jury I imagine didn’t see it this way and decided based upon the info in the pamphlet been false.

    • Ad 1.1
      1 October 2016 at 6:42 am

      Hard right takes out hard right.

      Top result.

      • cricklewood 1.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 6:50 am

        Outside of an enjoyable sideshow Will it make a difference? I’d imagine Conservative votes will split to Winston and the Nats…
        I’d also be pretty sure the Nats will be happy to have Colin Craig out of the picture I suspect he was and irritation they will be happy to be free of.

      • Chooky 1.1.2
        1 October 2016 at 10:37 am

        …actually “Hard right” takes out a conservative Colin Craig who at the time ( before the Election, which his party lost by a whisker) was wavering in his support for jonkey Nact

        if I remember correctly he was questioning some of their ethics ‘Dirty Politics’ and policies and questioning whether his Party would form a coalition with Nact (but can’t find the link)

        he was turning his Party from a potential coalition partner into an adversary

        http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-politics-daily-national%E2%80%99s-future-coalition-colin-craig%E2%80%99s-conservatives-ts-148573

        • Chooky 1.1.2.1
          1 October 2016 at 11:05 am

          Conservatives opposed to Nact selling of State Assets

          http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/conservatives-want-mandate-for-asset-sales-2013111611

          “During the campaign the party portrayed itself as able to work with either of the two main parties, National and Labour.[25]”

          “opposition to sales of rural land to foreign interests[9]”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_of_New_Zealand

          ( all these things would make Colin Craig and his Party an enemy of the interests of jonkey Nact…or at very least unreliable, hence the attacks by Slater…but Craig had other reservations also …the links which I can not find)

        • mary_a 1.1.2.2
          1 October 2016 at 11:33 am

          Good comments there Chooky.

          …” he (Craig) was turning his Party from a potential coalition partner into an adversary (National) …”

          You could have a point in that regard.

          So Key/ Joyce let Williams loose (claiming he was defamed) on Craig perhaps, to intentionally tarnish his reputation and credibility?

          • Chuck 1.1.2.2.1
            1 October 2016 at 12:20 pm

            “So Key/ Joyce let Williams loose (claiming he was defamed) on Craig perhaps, to intentionally tarnish his reputation and credibility?”

            Yes of course mary_a that was the master plan all along…

            You also forgot to include Racheal in this evil master plan. After all she would of had to of been in on it…to receive her orders to resign days before the election.

            • In Vino 1.1.2.2.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 6:58 pm

              Rachael would probably appreciate having her name spelt correctly. How come you are on first name terms with her? Everyone else a surname, but because Rachael is a woman, you feel you have the right to use (and butcher) her first name. You dirty sexist creep. Typical redneck.

              You thought I was going to criticise your deliberately using ‘of’ instead of ‘have’, didn’t you? (Assuming you are literate enough to do such a thing deliberately.)

              • Chuck …
                2 October 2016 at 12:17 pm

                School holidays must be torture for you mate! Don’t worry another week and you can take out all your issues on the poor students again.

                “You dirty sexist creep. Typical redneck”

                LOL I reckon you’re a closet banjo player In Vino!

                BTW I do like Lynyard Skynyrd…does that count?

                Anyhow back to the topic of conversation: do you agree with your fellow activists that the Colin Craig thing was planned by John Key (I know I used his surname, but hey John is such a common name). A master plan if you like to take Colin out???

    • James 1.2
      1 October 2016 at 8:17 am

      I think it’s more that they listened to all the evidence and made a decision based on that alone and were neutral politically.

      A lot of people on here are rabid bias and it blinkers their judgement so much they are incapable of seeing another view.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1
        1 October 2016 at 8:42 am

        It remains to be seen what the damage to Williams’ reputation will be. Was he always known as “taking one for the team” to get information in a pretence of intimacy?

        I guess that avenue of employment might have a few more speed bumps in it now…perhaps even an enraged father or two 😈

      • left for dead 1.2.2
        1 October 2016 at 9:06 am

        Yeea, I can hardly see my keyboard at this point, an the costs it wont stand.

    • Muttonbird 1.3
      1 October 2016 at 9:16 am

      This is a big win for the Dirty Politics nest of vipers. It’s a rubber stamp by this particular court for Slater, Farrar, Williams, that mad bitch in Singapore, Eade-types, and the rest to continue their proxy attacks on behalf of the John Key government.

      Be afraid

    • Muttonbird 1.4
      1 October 2016 at 9:17 am

      This is a big win for the Dirty Politics nest of vipers. It’s a rubber stamp by this particular court for Slater, Farrar, Williams, that mad bitch in Singapore, Eade-types, and the rest to continue their proxy attacks on behalf of the John Key government.

      Be afraid.

    • Macro 1.5
      1 October 2016 at 7:57 pm

      Yes Williams is judged to have a reputation that could be harmed! Astounding really.

    • The Chairman 2.1
      1 October 2016 at 7:49 am

      Instead of limiting foreign buyers to new builds, do you think Labour should look at adopting Key’s suggestion?

      Limiting foreign buyers to new builds will still put demand pressure on land.

      Apparently applying a stamp duty in NZ infringes upon our Korean FTA.

      But there is always Key’s B plan.

      http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11628459

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 8:25 am

        Some of these options sound like a 1.2L carb engine trying to pull a truck

        No foreign ownership of NZ land, and a 10 year phase out period which allows existing foreign owners to sell their land to either another Kiwi citizen or the NZ government, and to get it back if desired on a 25 year lease.

        • The Chairman 2.1.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 8:58 am

          “Some of these options sound like a 1.2L carb engine trying to pull a truck “

          An excessively punitive land tax on foreign owners would achieve your goal.

          Leasing land still puts demand on land supply.

        • save nz 2.1.1.2
          1 October 2016 at 10:21 am

          +1 CV – and don’t forget with rising sea levels and weather disruption there is going to be less and less options. So selling our land, assets, farms and property off cheap now – what’s going to happen when there’s major disruption… We need to be like much of Asia and ban foreign ownership of all of the above.

          BTW any mention of climate change disruption in our unitary plan???
          It’s not mentioned in TPP.

          So essentially politicians are just blocking their ears and shaking their heads on forward planning.

          • Colonial Viper 2.1.1.2.1
            1 October 2016 at 11:10 am

            Basically your analysis is spot on. On Climate Change politicians are still playing their bullshit games of we have two, three, four decades to slash emissions.

            In reality we ran out of time in the 1990s but morally we have to make the biggest effort possible right here right now.

            Which means putting the knife to capitalism and to consumerism.

      • Bearded Git 2.1.2
        1 October 2016 at 10:27 am

        That article is from April….6 months later house prices have continued to rocket yet Key still sits on his hands. Meanwhile the whole nation except John Key knows that it is overseas buyers pushing up prices. What a dumb position National is taking.

        • The Chairman 2.1.2.1
          1 October 2016 at 10:44 am

          Some say the high cost of housing will be National’s downfall.

        • Richard Rawshark 2.1.2.2
          1 October 2016 at 11:05 am

          Back in the land of reality to correct your statement, everyone knows oversea’s buyers are only PART of the problem. Quite frankly actual foreign investment would be minor compared to the influx of migrants needing to buy new homes on arrival, they are not foreign they are new residents.

          • pat 2.1.2.2.1
            1 October 2016 at 8:05 pm

            the difference with resident migrants however is the fact their income (and consequently their ability to service) is likely to be local….there is much less likely to be such a disconnect from the real economy.

      • save nz 2.1.3
        1 October 2016 at 10:29 am

        With Key’s B plan, shows that foreign ownership is an election issue that National are losing and so they are trying to hedge.

        Hope Labour stick with their no foreign sales which is pretty easy to communicate rather than some sort of complicated policy that involves more taxes that might hit Kiwis.

        • The Chairman 2.1.3.1
          1 October 2016 at 10:42 am

          Why do you support Labour limiting offshore investors to only buying new builds over a tax that could potentially (depending on how high it was set) deter them altogether?

          Labour’s position (limiting offshore investors to only buying new builds) still puts international demand pressure on local land supply, thus driving up the cost of land, hence adding to the overall cost of housing. Which defeats the objective.

          • Save nz 2.1.3.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 11:02 am

            @ Chairman – sorry too late to edit. I don’t support Labour’s current policy of new builds only to foreign speculators. I support a total ban. New builds will not work to deter, as foreign investors love new builds, – see Guardian article.

            The other issue is that the existing stock of Auckland has already been plundered by foreign speculation so it’s too late for that one. In Auckland a few years ago you could get a freehold bungalow in West Auckland for $350,000 or Helensville for $250,000 – now you are looking $700,000 plus.

            Now politicians are rushing around saying that a small $500,000 apartment with Body corp and unsuitable for a family, is affordable and developers are our best friend and relax regulation. We already have a problem with shoddy developments from the 90’s.

            • The Chairman 2.1.3.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 11:45 am

              I noticed Labour (or is it the media?) often tout Labour’s new build only policy as a ban on foreign investment, which I believe is misleading and could be seen as an appeal to the ignorant.

  3. pat 3
    1 October 2016 at 8:38 am

    Keys plan B (or idle musing) ….It may, but as always the devil would be in the detail.

    I wonder about the statement a stamp duty would breach the NZ Korea FTA given Australia have applied an additional non resident duty and they negotiated their FTA with Korea approx 12 months earlier. I also note the requirement is equal treatment.

    One thing is certain it is a situation that cannot long continue for both economic and political reasons, and the capital flight when it ends will be a tad problematic.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      1 October 2016 at 8:49 am

      If it does breach the FTA give the affected parties 90 days notice before implementing, invite a new round of trade discussions to be scheduled, then proceed to breach the FTA.

      • pat 3.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 9:07 am

        believe it is 6 months but there is provision to legislate in the interest of public welfare in any event

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 10:52 am

          Thanks Pat, go with 6 months then. NZ is a country which values proper diplomatic processes.

      • Lanthanide 3.1.2
        1 October 2016 at 9:07 am

        I agree that proceeding to breach a FTA could be a sensible plan, depending on the terms that are being breached etc.

        It would put us at significant disadvantage for negotiating future deals, though.

      • The Chairman 3.1.3
        1 October 2016 at 9:22 am

        “If it does breach the FTA give the affected parties 90 days notice before implementing, invite a new round of trade discussions to be scheduled, then proceed to breach the FTA.”

        There is no need too. A land tax can be just as effective.

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1
          1 October 2016 at 10:53 am

          I don’t understand how a land tax is going to be effective against foreign buyers with endless hard currency funds on tap.

          • The Chairman 3.1.3.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 11:49 am

            Really?

            It’s rather simple. It can be used to price them out of the market.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.3.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 1:23 pm

              How do you price out people who buy $1.5M Auckland properties in cash?

              • The Chairman …
                1 October 2016 at 2:23 pm

                By making their investment unfeasible, hence they’ll leave to seek better returns elsewhere.

    • The Chairman 3.2
      1 October 2016 at 9:08 am

      Indeed re the devil would be in the details.

      Nonetheless, on the face of it, Key’s B plan would be more effective. Labour’s suggestion in this regard has a massive flaw.

      As the tax rate can be adjusted to suit, it allows for more scope to control the correction, thus the capital flight.

      • pat 3.2.1
        1 October 2016 at 9:27 am

        except that Key has no intention in implementing his plan B, whereas the Labour package (and it must be viewed in total) would have an impact, how quickly and how much is open to debate.

        Am unconvinced of the flexibility of a land tax to control any capital flight…..by its nature it is uncontrolled.

        • The Chairman 3.2.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 9:44 am

          Adopting Key’s B plan would improve Labour’s package.

          Moreover, one should never underestimate Key. If their internal polling suggests to them that the B plan is required, he could quickly put it in place.

          It should be clear to you that the higher a land tax, the more unfeasible it becomes to invest, hence the more it will deter investors, thus encourage capital flight. Reducing the tax will help reduce the capital flight. Thus, the flexibility results in giving some control.

          • Save nz 3.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 11:07 am

            @ The Chairman

            A proposed land tax could lose labour the election if it backfires and starts to scare off homeowners. Lose lose.

            Key is probably hoping Labour does it too, and then back track once Labour starts publicising their policy.

            • The Chairman 3.2.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 11:38 am

              Not if said land tax was only aimed at foreign investors.

              It wouldn’t be difficult to exempt NZ citizens/homeowners. And as they will be exempt, they would have little to fear.

              Moreover, Key has already planted the seed, laying down good reasoning for it. Therefore, it would be difficult for him to now argue against that reasoning.

              At best, all Key could do is argue it isn’t required, which is what he’ll most likely do when it comes to Labour’s new build only policy.

              Another aspect that is beneficial to a land tax over Labour’s new build only policy is a land tax will help cover the infrastructure cost burden that comes with building new homes.

          • pat 3.2.1.1.2
            1 October 2016 at 12:35 pm

            ‘It should be clear to you that the higher a land tax, the more unfeasible it becomes to invest, hence the more it will deter investors, thus encourage capital flight. Reducing the tax will help reduce the capital flight. Thus, the flexibility results in giving some control.”

            lol…the theory is simplistic enough,however i think you will discover that the effect will not be so in practice

            • The Chairman 3.2.1.1.2.1
              1 October 2016 at 12:52 pm

              Of course other variables may come into play. Nevertheless, that doesn’t discount the fact that the flexibility of a tax gives us some level of control.

          • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1.1.3
            1 October 2016 at 12:44 pm

            It should be clear to you that the higher a land tax, the more unfeasible it becomes to invest, hence the more it will deter investors, thus encourage capital flight.

            Ah, but the real question is: Should we be concerned with foreign money leaving our shores?

            And the answer to that is No! In fact, as far as I can make out, we’d be far better off with it all gone. After all, we don’t actually foreign money to utilise our own resources. Our own government created money would work fine.

            • The Chairman 3.2.1.1.3.1
              1 October 2016 at 12:57 pm

              “But the real question is: Should we be concerned with foreign money leaving our shores?”

              No we shouldn’t. However, with the lie (NZ needs foreign investment) being perpetuated all these years, some will disagree.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                1 October 2016 at 1:08 pm

                Then we need to counter that lie and not continue supporting it.

                • pat …
                  1 October 2016 at 2:48 pm

                  as always it is a question of degree….foreign investment may or may not be required/desirable depending of what level of trade and growth you desire…..thats when the arguments start

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    1 October 2016 at 3:22 pm

                    Growth isn’t dependent upon trade no matter how much the idiotic economist, RWNJs and politicians think it is. Growth is dependent upon increasing population.

                    Development is actually dependent upon the country being willing to spend the resources in supporting R&D.

                    The only thing that trade really supplies is the ability to get products before we can produce them ourselves fro our own resources.

                    • pat …
                      1 October 2016 at 5:08 pm

                      “Growth isn’t dependent upon trade no matter how much the idiotic economist, RWNJs and politicians think it is. Growth is dependent upon increasing population.”

                      Almost, growth is dependent on demand…that demand can be as a result of population increase or other means, i.e. exports.

                      As to trade , this is a debate we’ve had before and I suspect we are unlikely to agree.

                      In any case Im still of the opinion that we need a model that operates with negative growth and am still looking.

                    • The Chairman …
                      1 October 2016 at 5:36 pm

                      The reason why growth is currently dependent upon trade is largely due to our debt based money supply.

                      While the principal is borrowed into the economy, the principal has to be repaid with interest incurred, which leaves the economy with a fiscal shortfall. Hence, the need to source and grow export revenue.

                  • The Chairman …
                    1 October 2016 at 5:33 pm

                    Foreign investment largely robs our economy of the benefits from trade and growth.

                    The more profitable a foreign owned investment is, the more money it tends to send offshore.

                    It’s often touted that jobs will be created, money will be spent locally and taxes will be paid. However, those benefits would eventuate regardless if assets were offshore owned or not.

                    It’s also often touted that we require the offshore funding to make it all happen, however there are alternatives to that.

                    Albeit, I concur, the level of degree plays a role in the scale of the negative impact.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    1 October 2016 at 6:48 pm

                    @pat

                    Almost, growth is dependent on demand…that demand can be as a result of population increase or other means, i.e. exports.

                    The exports simulate increased local population.

                    In any case Im still of the opinion that we need a model that operates with negative growth and am still looking.

                    If we only supplied our local community then increasing productivity results in decreasing work/jobs in current industries. This frees up people to work in other industries especially in the R&D of those other industries.

                    All this means that we could have a developing economy without an increasing population.

                    Full recycling would mean that resource extraction could be minimised. This combined with a stable population level means that we could actually live sustainably.

                    There is no/very little trade between nations in this model.

                    @The Chairman

                    The reason why growth is currently dependent upon trade is largely due to our debt based money supply.

                    Yes which is why I’ve been advocation a full sovereign monetary system:
                    Real Monetary Reform
                    Cashless

                    • pat …
                      1 October 2016 at 7:03 pm

                      “if we only supplied our local community then increasing productivity results in decreasing work/jobs in current industries. This frees up people to work in other industries especially in the R&D of those other industries.”

                      It may, Keynes predicted it, however society appears unwilling to allow reduced labour and instead pursues increased consumption, usually of useless or throw away items and the misuse of resources.

                      however the economy needs to be considered in total and trade will remain instrumental to that, the problem that remains is the function of interest….and if I was being really negative (as I have been described) then it doesn’t matter as we will have no functioning economy in the not too distant future.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      1 October 2016 at 8:42 pm

                      It may, Keynes predicted it, however society appears unwilling to allow reduced labour and instead pursues increased consumption

                      Is that due to society or due to the oligarch’s that actually rule? The ones that don’t want us to have time or resources to rule ourselves.

              • Richard Rawshark …
                1 October 2016 at 5:44 pm

                IT’s not a lie that NZ needs foreign investment, it’s the type and target of that finance, it’s certainly not housing speculation.

                • The Chairman …
                  1 October 2016 at 6:06 pm

                  But it is a lie. There are other funding alternatives.

                  Moreover, over the long-term investors generally seek to receive far more than they initially invest. Which may be good for them but it’s not for our economy overall.

                  It’s not something we need more of.

                  • pat …
                    1 October 2016 at 7:16 pm

                    under the current system we do indeed need foreign investment, the question is whether we wish to be part of the current system…and if we don’t are we willing to accept what that means?

                    • The Chairman …
                      1 October 2016 at 8:40 pm

                      Even with limiting our perspective to the current system there are still alternatives.

                      And some would even question if funding is the problem.

                      Take the sharemarket for example. One could argue there is a shortage of listings rather a shortage of funding.

                      NZ has been encouraging offshore investment for decades and this (link below) is the result thus far.

                      http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-current-account

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      1 October 2016 at 8:41 pm

                      under the current system we do indeed need foreign investment

                      Why?

                      Even under the current system we don’t need foreign investment. Even a lot of the basic research necessary to develop our economy is freely available because the US Fed funded research is publicly available even when it’s been done by a private company as that happens to be part of the conditions for getting the money.

                      So, why do we need foreign investment?

                  • pat …
                    1 October 2016 at 9:30 pm

                    “Take the sharemarket for example. One could argue there is a shortage of listings rather a shortage of funding.”

                    please do…..but seriously, assume you are referring to the propensity to bubble…a direct result of current monetary policy, an inflationary surplus of CB created funds looking for a home (return)…..the number of listings is irrelevant.

                    like any economy if you increase money supply without increasing resource you have inflation, it was ever so and ever will be

                    • The Chairman …
                      2 October 2016 at 10:35 am

                      When it comes to the NZ sharemarket, the domestic funding is there, it’s the lack of listings that is problematic.

                      New listings are far and few between, indicating businesses aren’t exactly queuing up for the money. And large local funds such as KiwiSaver funds, ACC and NZ Super find it difficult identifying suitable domestic investments.

                      Therefore, funding isn’t the problem, it’s more about NZ’s lack of suitable domestic investments.

                      As you know, NZ businesses are largely made up of SMEs. Moreover, only a small percentage of them export.

                      And there are numerous reasons for this, but funding isn’t the main concern.

                      As shown in the current account link, NZ offshore returns are failing to offset the returns offshore investors take out of our economy.

                      Therefore, encouraging more offshore investment will only make it more difficult for us to get back into surplus. And you are arguing we need more of this? We need to own our own future.

                      Despite all the neo-liberal reforms we’ve endured over the years, we haven’t had a current account surplus since the 70’s.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  1 October 2016 at 8:36 pm

                  Ok, can you explain to everyone why we need foreign money, which is created ex nihilo just like ours, to utilise our own resources?

                  Why would we need foreign cash when we could just create the money that we need?

                  • pat …
                    1 October 2016 at 9:04 pm

                    “Why would we need foreign cash when we could just create the money that we need?”

                    and there you have it…under the current system if you finance your debt (we currently have around260 billion in external debt) through gov issue you debase the currency to the point of toilet paper…..you can create credit for actions that increase value/return, those actions are relatively limited…or don’t you recognise hyperinflation?there have been numerous examples
                    I am well aware you advocate a government money tree economy and you are equally aware of my opinion of that, especially if you wish to continue cross boarder trade.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      1 October 2016 at 9:44 pm

                      and there you have it…under the current system if you finance your debt (we currently have around260 billion in external debt) through gov issue you debase the currency to the point of toilet paper

                      No you won’t. That’s just another lie by the rich because they need the world to believe that we need them when we actually don’t.

                      If simply creating money debased it then it wouldn’t have any value as it’s created all the time. Billions per year just in NZ. The US and other large economies create proportionately larger amounts.

                      you can create credit for actions that increase value/return, those actions are relatively limited…or don’t you recognise hyperinflation?

                      Of course I do. The difference between me and you is that I recognise that it was the private banks creating money that caused the hyper-inflation.

                      there have been numerous examples

                      And there are even more examples of government created money causing prosperity while private control of the money system causes poverty.

                      Personally, I’m in favour of prosperity for everyone and not just the banksters.

                  • pat …
                    1 October 2016 at 9:51 pm

                    sorry DTB…it is simple maths….resource in ratio to money supply.

                    Show me a constituency (and subsequently a politician) that will not demand and receive increased funding WITHOUT the required increased resource…..and that is in a closed economy, the impact is multiplied when you factor in cross boarder trade.

                    It has been shown to be true time and time again, what makes you think it will be different in your case?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:05 pm

                      That’s not simple maths. That’s making up excuses to keep the same failed system we have now.

                      It has been shown to be true time and time again

                      Actually, it hasn’t. The exact opposite has. The exact opposite is the system we have now.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:30 pm

                      You’re being utterly ridiculous Pat.

                      I have no idea why you keep hewing to the orthodox neoliberal view of monetary policy, but it’s a whole lot of stupid.

                      NZ M3 aggregate money supply has roughly doubled between 2006 and 2016.

                      Can you demonstrate to me where/how we have doubled our access to resources?

                      And if you can’t, can you explain to me why NZ is not currently in a period of hyperinflation?

                    • pat …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:40 pm

                      “NZ M3 aggregate money supply has roughly doubled between 2006 and 2016.

                      Can you demonstrate to me where/how we have doubled our access to resources?

                      And if you can’t, can you explain to me why NZ is not currently in a period of hyperinflation?”
                      Ill take you at your word M3 has doubled in that time ….whats the average house price in Auckland at the moment?

                      “I have no idea why you keep hewing to the orthodox neoliberal view of monetary policy, but it’s a whole lot of stupid.’

                      except its not neoliberal economics….its simply the foundation of all economic theory of all orders, you don’t appear to grasp that simple fact

                      there is no advantage knowing all the terms CV if you don’t understand how the pieces fit together

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:41 pm

                      I mean, fuck it, there is a clear scarcity of money in the bottom 50% of society, and here you are going on about how having too large a money supply is a real problem.

                      Meanwhile, I notice that we have just had another ‘European Prestige’ type new car showroom open up in Dunedin.

                      So some parts of our society seem to be having much easier and voluminous access to the money supply than others.

                      Yet no one is talking about restricting the access of the wealthy and the privileged to money due to fears of hyperinflation.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:45 pm

                      except its not neoliberal economics….its simply the foundation of all economic theory of all orders, you don’t appear to grasp that simple fact

                      Bullshit.

                      Keynes did not subscribe to this model of monetary theory, nor did Irving Fisher, who understood that private debt created private money independent of the actions of government.

                      And I’ll be very surprised if you can demonstrate that Marxian economics subscribes to this model of monetary theory.

                      In other words, your statement that this is the “foundation of all economic theory of all orders” is full of shit to overflowing and I wonder why you are lying your head off.

                    • pat …
                      1 October 2016 at 11:24 pm

                      http://inflationmatters.com/keynesian-inflation-theory/

                      “This analysis shows that Keynes’s theory does explain the majority of the inflation spikes witnessed in the UK since the 1940s. Some are demand-pull factors e.g. war shortages and increases in the money supply. However cost-push factors have been particularly important i.e. increases in the price of oil, sterling devaluations (which have increased the prices of our imports) and tax rises.”

                      http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/marxian-theory-inflation

                      “The number of pieces of paper is thus determined by the quantity of gold currency which they represent in circulation, and as they are tokens of value only in so far as they take the place of gold currency, their value is simply determined by their quantity, Whereas, therefore, the quantity of gold in circulation depends on the prices of commodities, the value of the paper in circulation, on the other hand, depends solely on its own quantity” (Critique of Political Economy, p.119. Marx’s emphasis).

                      the point of difference amongst all economic schools is not the impact of increased money supply rather the when who and how of its implementation.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 October 2016 at 12:25 am

                      I guess Germany, Zimbabwe et al imagined it then

                      German hyper-inflation was caused by the private banks and speculators using the system that we have now – the private banks creating money.

                      Zimbabwe is the case of a bunch of psychopathic, greedy loons being in charge.

                      All the other times, and there’ve been several, were a case of stable government doing it right and there not being any hyper-inflation. An estimate that I read several years ago was that between 50% and 80% of inflation was due to the private banks creating money. It’s most definitely the cause of housing prices going up at massive rates.

                      except its not neoliberal economics….its simply the foundation of all economic theory of all orders, you don’t appear to grasp that simple fact

                      But that’s not a fact. In fact, it’s pure delusion. There are other monetary systems, ones that actually work, and our present system isn’t economic. If it was we wouldn’t have private cars for starters.

                      Yes, excessive amounts of money creation without a corresponding money destruction causes hyper-inflation. It’s what drives inflation today – the private banks creating too much money.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 October 2016 at 12:38 am

                      both Zimbabwe and Germany had first suffered massive destruction of industries and productive capabilities which were key factors setting up the hyperinflation.

                    • pat …
                      2 October 2016 at 1:02 am

                      you’re labouring under a misapprehension again I’m afraid DTB….the German Gov printed the dosh….

                      “The government’s strategy backfired when Germany lost the war. The new Weimar Republic was now saddled with a massive war debt that it could not afford, made even worse by the fact that it was printing money without the economic resources to back it up.[3] The Treaty of Versailles further accelerated the decline in the value of the mark, such that 48 paper marks were required to buy one US dollar by late 1919.[5]”
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

                      and its extraordinary the number of psychopathic loons that end running (ruining) countries….in any case whoever or whenever the results are the same and wishing won’t change how humans interact with money.

                    • pat …
                      2 October 2016 at 1:05 am

                      @CV
                      was that the wrong Marx?…..perhaps you meant Chico?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      2 October 2016 at 9:36 am

                      those theories do not describe the hyperinflationary incidents of Germany nor Zimbabwe where the destruction and confiscation of productive and industrial capacity was central.

                      Anyway, fuck this, I’m uninterested in the TINA crowd who are simply looking for excuses to keep directing massive flows of new money to the top 0.1%, then pretending that has to be the way it needs to be, because “hyperinflation.”

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      2 October 2016 at 9:55 am

                      The Weimar Hyperinflation? Could it Happen Again?

                      Schacht Lets the Cat Out of the Bag

                      Light is thrown on this mystery by the later writings of Hjalmar Schacht, the currency commissioner for the Weimar Republic. The facts are explored at length in The Lost Science of Money by Stephen Zarlenga, who writes that in Schacht’s 1967 book The Magic of Money, he “let the cat out of the bag, writing in German, with some truly remarkable admissions that shatter the ‘accepted wisdom’ the financial community has promulgated on the German hyperinflation.” What actually drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation, said Schacht, was speculation by foreign investors, who would bet on the mark’s decreasing value by selling it short.

                      Short selling is a technique used by investors to try to profit from an asset’s falling price. It involves borrowing the asset and selling it, with the understanding that the asset must later be bought back and returned to the original owner. The speculator is gambling that the price will have dropped in the meantime and he can pocket the difference. Short selling of the German mark was made possible because private banks made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created on demand and lent to investors, returning a profitable interest to the banks.

                      At first, the speculation was fed by the Reichsbank (the German central bank), which had recently been privatized. But when the Reichsbank could no longer keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.

                      Germany’s 1923 Hyperinflation:
                      A “Private” Affair

                      Discussions of the dangers of inflation inevitably end up at the worst-ever case known – the German hyperinflation of 1923. Accompanied by economists’ moralizing warnings of the dire results of governments’ printing paper money, the German hyperinflation is used as a horror story by those who advocate a plutocratic control over money. However (as in other cases), when the monetary facts are actually examined, the argument falls apart as it becomes clear that the bankers themselves and speculators were the primary cause of the German hyperinflation, which was not stopped until the government took decisive action against them.

                      In other words, the banking system as we know it today with the same solution now as then – to take that power to create money away from them and place it solely in the hands of the government under strict rules.

                      And, of course, doing something about the speculators.

                      The reasons for the hyperinflation and the high inflation of today is to curtail the ability of the private banks to create money and tax speculators out of existence. The exact opposite if what you’ve been told your entire life. Having you and others hold onto the wrong belief is what’s getting in the way of being able to fix it.

                      EDIT:
                      The fix

                      More interesting is a little-known sequel to this tale. What allowed Germany to get back on its feet in the 1930s was the very thing today’s commentators are blaming for bringing it down in the 1920s – money issued by seigniorage by the government. Economist Henry C. K. Liu calls this form of financing “sovereign credit.” He writes of Germany’s remarkable transformation:

                      “The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.”

                    • pat …
                      2 October 2016 at 10:35 am

                      @ DTB
                      Thanks for the link, I shall do some reading

                      @ CV
                      Toys…meet cot

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    1 October 2016 at 8:40 am

    US protects al-Nusra jihadists in Syria in order to keep “Plan B” regime change option open

    Russian foreign minister Lavrov talks to BBC.

    The US is keeping jihadist group al-Nusra for a “Plan B”, potentially to overthrow Syrian President Assad, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with the BBC.

    Speaking to the British outlet about increased violence in Syria, including in Aleppo, Lavrov said that Washington has still not delivered on its promise to persuade US-backed rebels to separate from Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists.

    The Russian Foreign Minister also said that the reason for this could be Washington’s desire to “change the regime” in the country.

    “They still, in spite of many repeated promises and commitments … are not able or not willing to do this and we have more and more reasons to believe that from the very beginning the plan was to spare al-Nusra and to keep it just in case for Plan B or stage two when it would be time to change the regime,” Lavrov said.

    https://www.rt.com/news/361242-interview-lavrov-bbc-syria/

    • Psycho Milt 4.1
      1 October 2016 at 11:15 am

      Lavrov talks as though the Syrian rebels were US clients in the way that the Assad regime is a Russian client. Lavrov can give Assad orders, but Kerry can’t give Syrian rebel groups orders, so there’s no basis for Lavrov to demand that they do. This is just spin to cover the Russian refusal to consider a cease-fire – if it comes down to peace talks, Assad has no future in Syria, unless it’s broken up, so defeating the rebels militarily and teaching the locals the usual lesson is Russia’s only way forward. I’m surprised they agreed to the earlier cease-fire.

      • Colonial Viper 4.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 1:09 pm

        I agree that the level of positive control that the US has over these Jihadists is poor.

        However it is also not zero.

        The airstrike that the US conducted against the Syrian Government military base in eastern Syria appeared to well co-ordinated with Islamist forces on the ground who launched their offensive within 10 minutes of the bombing ending.

        • Bill 4.1.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 1:27 pm

          The funding of the ‘White Helmets’ doesn’t indicate a poor level of control/influence. Oh – and then we get the ‘White Helmets’ being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize – couldn’t make it up if you tried.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 1:39 pm

            Yep agree, and I only became aware of the “White Helmets” recently.

            And that they operate only in Jihadist held territory, and in at least some cases seem to be the very same Jihadists who don fluoro vests and white safety helmets pretending to be civil defence volunteers.

            They seem to have very slick well funded corporate PR, too.

          • Psycho Milt 4.1.1.1.2
            1 October 2016 at 3:20 pm

            The funding of the ‘White Helmets’ doesn’t indicate a poor level of control/influence.

            Exactly what level of control/influence do you imagine helping fund the White Helmets gives the US over them, let alone over rebel paramilitary forces?

            • Bill 4.1.1.1.2.1
              1 October 2016 at 3:25 pm

              Given that the White Helmets are allegedly ’embedded’ with, and may actually be an integral part of, the mercenary groupings – I’d punt at ‘quite a lot’.

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 October 2016 at 4:03 pm

                Why? Further down, you linked to an interview on YouTube in which an Al Nusra commander declares that most of their money comes from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, that they’ve made good use of US TOW missiles but otherwise had little support from the US, and that they don’t take orders from the US. That sound to me like the US has fuck-all influence over these guys.

                • Bill …
                  1 October 2016 at 6:31 pm

                  So, nothing from you on the White Helmets. And a dodgy interpretation of a linked interview. Good-oh.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    1 October 2016 at 7:08 pm

                    Something from me on the White Helmets:

                    I have a book called “Feuersturm ueber Hamburg,” written by the head of the fire service in Hamburg during WW2. It covers the fire services’ attempts to deal with air raids, including the firestorm raids in 1943 that killed 43,000 civilians in a couple of days. It’s riveting stuff, detailing awesome bravery and heroic efforts to save civilian life, by a guy who was working for the Nazis and who probably assisted with no end of Nazi propaganda stories inbetween trying to deal with the carnage.

                    The fact is, in wartime you can be working under very bad people and still be heroically providing emergency services under impossible circumstances and at great risk to your own life. I expect this applies as much to the emergency workers in regime-held areas as it does to the White Helmets.

      • Poission 4.1.2
        1 October 2016 at 1:39 pm

        Lavrov talks as though the Syrian rebels were US clients in the way that the Assad regime is a Russian client

        Well the state department use of veiled threats against russian cities suggest maybe they are.

        The consequences are that the civil war will continue in Syria, that extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against Russian interests, perhaps even Russian cities, and Russia will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft. The stability that they claim they seek in Syria will be ever more elusive, and it’s hard to imagine how a continued war – not just a civil war now, but increasingly more violent extremist activity in Syria – can be in the interest of a nation that says, that claims, and has claimed publicly time and time again that what they want to see is a whole, unified, pluralistic Syria and a stable Syria, a secure Syria, a Syria where they want to continue to have a defense relationship and a presence. So that’s what’s in it for them.

        http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/09/262560.htm

        Or the temerity of Assad and the syrian government for wanting to conquer syrian Territory as accused by samantha power at the SC.

        • Psycho Milt 4.1.2.1
          1 October 2016 at 3:24 pm

          It’s an indication of the level of delusion leftist authoritarians are bringing to this subject that you see “veiled threats against Russian ciities” in that.

          • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 3:40 pm

            That extremists and extremists groups will continue to exploit the vacuums that are there in Syria to expand their operations, which will include, no question, attacks against US interests, perhaps even US cities, and the US will continue to send troops home in body bags, and they will continue to lose resources – even, perhaps, more aircraft.

            Would you read the above as being explicitly threatening to the USA, or do you think it is a completely neutral statement.

            • Psycho Milt 4.1.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 3:53 pm

              Well, you’re the guy who’s spent years saying every terrorist attack against westerners is a direct consequence of “the West” bombing Muslim countries. Were you making “veiled threats against western cities” by pointing that out?

              • Colonial Viper …
                1 October 2016 at 4:03 pm

                So you thought the paragraph above was neutral in character and not in any way threatening to the USA?

                • Psycho Milt …
                  1 October 2016 at 4:05 pm

                  Like I said, I thought the paragraph sounded like the kind of thing you write on this blog all the time. Certainly not neutral, but certainly not threatening anyone either.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    1 October 2016 at 6:22 pm

                    Well I’m just some troll on the internet; the US State Dept.has more weight than what I say

    • Bill 4.2
      1 October 2016 at 12:51 pm

      Sadly CV, not many are interested in anything that questions the official narrative.

      This comprehensive report from the US Peace Council that was given at UN HQ in New York was attended by less than a dozen journalists.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc-RmAVK8Pg

      And this interview by Jürgen Todenhöfer has dropped quietly under almost every radar

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K6zqSTSp6g

      In contrast to Syria or Assad, the President of the Philippines casually compares himself to Hitler, sanctions the indiscriminate murder of drug users and drug dealers and there’s nothing much of anything in reaction. Which has nothing to do with the Philippines being strategically positioned in a ‘necklace’ that runs through the South China Sea of course.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/30/rodrigo-duterte-vows-to-kill-3-million-drug-addicts-and-likens-himself-to-hitler

      • Colonial Viper 4.2.1
        1 October 2016 at 1:40 pm

        Thanks for the US Peace Council link, Bill. Watching it now.

      • Psycho Milt 4.2.2
        1 October 2016 at 3:14 pm

        In contrast to Syria or Assad, the President of the Philippines casually compares himself to Hitler, sanctions the indiscriminate murder of drug users and drug dealers and there’s nothing much of anything in reaction.

        I expect not. Even if Assad weren’t currently engaged in a huge, Russian-assisted campaign of mass murder against his own people, you only need to read a bit of Robert Fisk’s work to realise why comparisons between Assad and Duterte are ludicrous – Duterte’s a minor annoyance to his citizenry compared to Assad.

        • Bill 4.2.2.1
          1 October 2016 at 3:34 pm

          Putting aside the fact you’re merely echoing the dominant western narrative about Syria (eg – no mention of the sanctions that are on a par with those imposed on Iraq; no explanation offered as to why Assad, elected in monitored elections to a parliament that has an active opposition, would be at war with his own people etc)…going by your take on Duterte, I guess you’d have said that Indonesia’s Suharto was also ‘a minor annoyance to his citizenry’?

          • Psycho Milt 4.2.2.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 3:58 pm

            Saddam Hussein used to get re-elected every time, too. It’s not a “western narrative,” it’s “being able to recognise a murderous dictator when you’re reading about one.”

            Maybe Duterte will make it up to Suharto or Assad’s level on the “murderous dictator” scale if he’s left to it for long enough. If he does, and the people of the Philippines rise up against him, can we assume based on current form that you’ll staunchly support the ruthless murder and torture needed to put him back in charge again?

            • Colonial Viper 4.2.2.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 4:14 pm

              Saddam Hussein used to get re-elected every time, too. It’s not a “western narrative,” it’s “being able to recognise a murderous dictator when you’re reading about one.”

              Oh dear how did you get this gullible?

              Where did you get your experience in “recognising murderous dictators”?

              From MSM stories where they pretty much brand the West’s persona non grata of the month with “Murderous Dictator” on his forehead?

              BTW what gives the Imperial Colonial West the right to start illegally funding head chopping regime changing insurgents and carrying out act of war airstrikes on foreign nations?

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 October 2016 at 6:01 pm

                Gullible in what way? The most you can say for Bashir al Assad is that he’s less cruel than his predecessor, his father Hafez al Assad (democracy in action!). The basis of their power has been common knowledge and written about extensively for decades by all kinds of journalists (and if you consider Robert Fisk a promoter of the “Imperial Colonial West” you’re even more deluded than I thought).

                As to what gives the “Imperial Colonial West” the right to fund insurgency in Syria: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t part of “the West” by any stretch of the imagination. Also: what gives Russia and Iran any more right to interfere in a Syrian civil war than Turkey and the Gulf states? It would be nice if foreigners had kept out of this conflict, but if they had Assad would have been dangling by his heels from a lamppost years ago. Foreign involvement’s what’s keeping your boy in power, so you should be happy with it, right?

                • Colonial Viper …
                  1 October 2016 at 6:20 pm

                  Also: what gives Russia and Iran any more right to interfere in a Syrian civil war than Turkey and the Gulf states?

                  Well, not that it would make a difference to an Imperial Colonialist Westerner like yourself, but Russia and Iran were invited by the democratically elected government of Syria to help defend the country against Islamic extremists illegally armed and funded by the west.

                  Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t part of “the West” by any stretch of the imagination.

                  And please include Turkey. Everyone knows that these are Islamic client states of the US, all of which host US military personnel on a permanent basis, all of which get access to billions of dollars of US armaments, and all of which are assisting the US in its regime change efforts in Syria for their own reasons.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    1 October 2016 at 6:46 pm

                    Unlike you, I know something of the Gulf states. Assad is a “client” of Russia because, without them, he’d be filled with holes by citizens of his country, so he has to do what they want. The leaders of Turkey, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, for all their unpleasant characteristics, aren’t in that situation. Those countries are interfering in the Syrian civil war in support of the rebels because it’s in their interests to do so – Russia and Iran are interfering in support of the regime because likewise. If you want to see good guys vs bad guys in there, no-one can stop you, but do try and keep it to yourself.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 9:26 pm

                      I guess the fact that all these US client states i.e. vassal states are armed to the teeth by the US itself, the same US which also turns a blind eye to their daily human rights abuses (imagine the US agreeing to sell another US$1.1B worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia as the Saudis continue to pound the towns and cities of their tiny, poor neighbour Yemen into dust).

                      ” Those countries are interfering in the Syrian civil war in support of the rebels because it’s in their interests to do so – Russia and Iran are interfering in support of the regime because likewise.”

                      I’m glad you have now recognised the illegal and arrogant acts of aggression that these US client states have been carrying out against the people of the sovereign nation of Syria for five years now, all with the diplomatic and military cover of the US.

                      One small difference: Russia and Iran are operating in Syria legally, at the request of the democratically elected and popular secular government of Syria.

                      The US, and the vassal states of the US, are all operating in Syria illegally.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:36 pm

                      Russia and Iran are protecting a client who now couldn’t last a year in power without their protection, because his own subjects would string him up if given the chance. And they’re doing it to further their own interests, not because there’s some inherent good to be derived from it. Spin it how you like, it’s the same game Turkey and the Gulf states are playing, just with pompous bullshit about “legal,” “popular”and “secular,”all of which should come with a /sarc tag when applied to the Assad regime.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:48 pm

                      Assad remains highly popular in Syria. Especially compared to the head chopper Islamic extremists.

                      And that’s why ISIS/al-Nusra and the 100 flavours of Jihadists that the USA and her allies support, need to keep importing foreign fighters to fulfill their illegal regime change dreams.

                      Because Syrians as a whole are against regime change.

                      It’s also why the US has always resisted the call for a political settlement with popular elections where Assad can be a candidate.

                      Because Assad would be returned to office in a landslide.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:51 pm

                      That’s pretty funny. He’d have finished all that breathing he’s been doing back in 2012 if the Russians and Iranians hadn’t stepped in to protect their investment. I hope I never have that level of “popularity” myself.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      1 October 2016 at 10:55 pm

                      Uh, the Russians and the Iranians didn’t directly intervene in the conflict until 2015

                      Also, between 100,000 to 200,000 Syrian Government soldiers have lost their lives fighting against the foreign funded jihadists, and stayed loyal to the legitimate authority in Damascus.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      2 October 2016 at 7:49 am

                      “Directly” being the operative word. The US has hardly had any “direct” involvement in the conflict at all, if you want to make that the yardstick.

                      Bottom line: if the population’s risen up against you and there’s a vicious civil war going on, your government isn’t “popular.”

            • Bill 4.2.2.1.1.2
              1 October 2016 at 6:38 pm

              If and when you ever arrive at a state that would allow for you to entertain honest, reasoned debate that might actually go somewhere, get back to me.

              I can’t be bothered with the mal-engagement that results from the skittery, disjointed hop-scotching that you indulge in.

              • Psycho Milt …
                1 October 2016 at 6:49 pm

                If, by “skittery, disjointed hop-skotching” you mean “disputing your claims,” guilty as charged. No obligation to respond is implied.

                • One Two …
                  1 October 2016 at 7:03 pm

                  That you believe the words you post constitute ‘disputing claims’, paints an unneeded picture of the bottom feeder you sell yourself as

                  Have a word with yourself

                • Bill …
                  1 October 2016 at 7:14 pm

                  I’ve no problem with disagreement Psycho Milt. But you only seem to be capable of jumping on a soapbox to shout “White!” if you think “Black” might be being proposed or, alternatively, to exclaim “Over there!” instead of engaging.

                  The original comment offered a first hand interview and a report from the US Peace Council. It then juxtaposed the western approach to Assad with their approach to Duterte.

                  As for “disputing your claims”, the claims I made in the original comment were.

                  1. It seems most people are comfortable to accept the official narrative with regards Syria.
                  2. Less than a dozen journalists turned up to the US Peace Council’s presser.
                  3. Jürgen Todenhöfer’s interview and its contents has received next to no coverage.
                  4. The reaction to Duterte has been muted in spite of him self demonizing.

                  You disputed precisely zero of those claims in the four or five responses you made below that comment.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    1 October 2016 at 10:48 pm

                    Not so. First, I disputed your implied argument that the relative lack of interest in Duterte vs Assad represents hypocrisy.

                    Next, I disputed your response that I’m peddling a “western narrative”and that I must presumably also regard Suharto’s dictatorship as being of relative unimportance.

                    My other comments point out Colonial Viper’s chronic Putin/Assad sycophancy – that’s in the nature of a blog comments thread. I didn’t have anything to say about the US Peace Council interview because they’re as entitled to their opinions as anyone else. Although, having said that, they were in Syria as guests of the regime and gave their interview at an event organised by the regime, so their opinion shouldn’t be taken as impartial.

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    1 October 2016 at 8:45 am

    Man walks into Apple Store and destroys every iPhone in sight.

    There is a kind of anti-religious symbolism to this event.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/project-mayhem-man-calmly-enters-apple-store-and-crushes-every-iphone-sight-ball-bea

    • weka 5.1
      1 October 2016 at 1:59 pm

      Interesting vid in need of a translator.

      Article reporting, wtf?

      • Bill 5.1.1
        1 October 2016 at 2:20 pm

        Apparently…

        00:21: Ta gueule!!! -> Shut up!!!
        00:23: Ils violent mes droits -> They violate my rights
        00:32: C’est bon? -> Are you finished?
        00:34: Mesdames et messieus, Apple est une société qui viole les droits du consommateur -> Ladies and gentlemen, Apple is a firm that violates the rights of the consumer.
        00:38: D’accord? -> Understand? / Right? / You acknowledge?
        00:39: Merci m’sieur! -> Thank you Sir!
        00:40: Donc effectivement ils violent mes droits, ils refusent de me rembourser conformément à la loi Européenne du consommateur -> Indeed they violate my rights, they refuse to reimburse me in accordance with the European consumer law
        00:45: Je les ai prévenus, je leur ai dit: remboursez-moi mon oseille et ils ont dit non. -> I notified them, I told them: give me back my dough and they said no.
        00:49: Qu’est-ce qui se passe? *PAF* Voilà ce qui se passe. -> What happens then? *WHAM* Here’s what happens.
        00:56: (spectateur) Ca va, c’est fini maintenant… (monsieur pétanque) Ta gueule! -> (onlooker) OK, you’re done now… (mister petanque) Shut up!
        00:59: (spectateur) Tu m’parles pas comme ça?!? (monsieur pétanque) Ta gueule. Non mais tu crois (inaudible: qu’t’es qui pour faire) ta loi mec? -> (onlooker) You don’t say?!? (mister petanque) Shut up. Who do you think (inaudible: you are to to lay down) the law man?

        The rest is less audible but of the same tone.

        On the back of the security guy: “Toison d’Or” -> “the Golden Fleece”

        P.S. Glad to help you biftecks (I bet you can find a translation for this one)

        • weka 5.1.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 4:09 pm

          ta. Ok, so nothing to see here really. The media coverage will most likely be fucked up.

  6. Naki man 6
    1 October 2016 at 8:47 am

    “No foreign ownership of NZ land, and a 10 year phase out period which allows existing foreign owners to sell their land to either another Kiwi citizen or the NZ government, and to get it back if desired on a 25 year lease”

    Can you imagine the outrage when Australia for example matches that stupid policy
    and tells all Kiwi’s living there they have to sell there homes because they can no longer own property, ridiculous.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      1 October 2016 at 8:56 am

      What’s the issue you are bitching about? Australia has a problem with Chinese buying up all their prime property too.

      If you are a Kiwi who owns a house in Australia, you get 10 years to sell up the land, and then you get a guaranteed 25 year lease. What’s the problem again?

      This policy would be very popular with many Australians and Kiwis will finally understand that the Australian government doesn’t give a shit about them.

    • Colonial Viper 6.2
      1 October 2016 at 8:58 am

      What’s the issue you are bitching about? Australia has a big problem with Chinese buying up all their prime property too and making housing unaffordable for their own first home buyers.

      If you are a Kiwi who owns a house in Australia, you get 10 years to sell up the land, and then you get a guaranteed 25 year lease. What’s the problem again?

      And if you were a really foolish Kiwi it means that you would have a full 35 years to get Australian citizenship.

      This policy would be very popular with many Australians and Kiwis will finally understand that the Australian government doesn’t give a shit about them.

    • Colonial Viper 6.3
      1 October 2016 at 9:09 am

      Kiwis living there would have 35 years to get out of their property. What’s your issue with that.

      This policy would be very popular with Australia which also has a big problem with Chinese buyers pushing up house prices unaffordably.

      Maybe Kiwis there would finally understand that the Australian government only uses them, and doesn’t really care about their standing in Australian society.

      They could even apply for their Australian citizenship in that time. If they really wanted.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.4
      1 October 2016 at 9:56 am

      The Australians are already telling NZers to go home and they’re not being particularly nice about it.

      Time to return the favour and stop kowtowing to what others think about us and if they’d be nice to us or not. Time to start doing what’s right for NZ and not the rich.

      • TheExtremist 6.4.1
        1 October 2016 at 2:34 pm

        I’m in Australia on business at the moment and my Aus colleagues here aren’t being particularly welcoming to my presence.

        • Colonial Viper 6.4.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 10:36 pm

          Use your rational knowledge of science and technology on them and prove them wrong

          • TheExtremist 6.4.1.1.1
            2 October 2016 at 12:28 pm

            Na, I prefer to use them on you because you are almost always categorically and provably wrong on almost everything you say.

      • alwyn 6.4.2
        1 October 2016 at 7:13 pm

        “Time to return the favour”
        Can we send Russel Norman back?
        Please. Pretty please.

  7. Chooky 7
    1 October 2016 at 10:16 am

    From the Other side ( to the msm):

    ‘Increased tensions’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/361157-russia-us-tensions-syria/

    “Going from bad to even worse: The very strident and harsh rhetoric coming out of Washington and directed towards Russia is unprecedented. Bilateral relations have reached a dangerous low. What happens now?

    CrossTalking with Gilbert Doctorow, Brian Becker, and Daniel McAdams.”

    …and

    ‘Universal bogeyman’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/357995-hillary-moscow-mainstream-media/

    “Turning reality on its head. Candidate Hillary Clinton claims the woes of the world are due to a vast alt-right conspiracy – and it is run out of Moscow. The fact is Western elites are in a panic. Publics and audiences around the world are no longer convinced by the messages propagated by the corporate mainstream media.

    CrossTalking with Matthew Gordon-Banks, Gilbert Doctorow, and Earl Rasmussen.”

  8. Bearded Git 8
    1 October 2016 at 10:47 am

    I see a trend emerging where the MSM is now attacking NZF and Peters at every opportunity. Key knows that Peters hates him and knows NZF will go with Labour so he has ordered his troops to attack in order to lower the NZF vote from say 10% to 6%-this will go on for the next 12 months.

    Witness here Audrey Young’s linkage of NZF with the Hobson’s Pledge nutters.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11720125

    • Chooky 8.1
      1 October 2016 at 11:09 am

      +100…yes Peters hates jonkey Nact…if Labour/Greens don’t get a majority then Peters will be Kingmaker

      ( doom for jonkey Nactional…and they know it!)

    • Save nz 8.2
      1 October 2016 at 11:10 am

      Yep, the will try and destroy Peters like they try to destroy all their opposition.

      So now is the time for an informal alliance between NZ First and Labour/Greens to work out how to get the most votes.

      • james 8.2.1
        1 October 2016 at 11:37 am

        I would love it is they formed a formal alliance. But they wont because NZF know their vote would die away should they tie themselves to Labour at this point.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1
          1 October 2016 at 11:53 am

          IMO, the exact opposite would happen. Both Labour and NZFirsts’ vote would go up and we’d be looking at a government with an actual mandate where better than 50% of the voters actually voted for it.

          • Chuck 8.2.1.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 12:34 pm

            “Both Labour and NZFirsts’ vote would go up”

            Where will the votes come from Draco? I assume you are thinking from voters whom would of voted National?

            Don’t you think there is a very good reason why Winston plays his game of not telling the public his preference in which side to support?

            “In reality it’s about alignment and NZFirst is far more aligned with Labour and the Greens than they are with National.”

            Does not matter…what matters is the negotiations after the election and the “policy wins” that either National or a Labour/Greens combo will give to Winston.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1.1.1
              1 October 2016 at 12:39 pm

              Where will the votes come from Draco? I assume you are thinking from voters whom would of voted National?

              Yes.

              Don’t you think there is a very good reason why Winston plays his game of not telling the public his preference in which side to support?

              No. I remember the 1996 election and how both Winston’s and Labour’s support increased when everyone thought that he was going to go with Labour. And how Winston’s then crashed after he went with National and has never recovered from that crash.

              Does not matter…what matters is the negotiations after the election and the “policy wins” that either National or a Labour/Greens combo will give to Winston.

              Wrong. The negotiations can only work if the two parties are in alignment to begin with. National and NZFirst simply aren’t.

    • james 8.3
      1 October 2016 at 11:36 am

      I love it how you believe NZF will go with Labour and the greens when the “main” party of that alliance is only on iro 30% and National are on 45 ish.

      Mate …. you’re dreaming.

      • Draco T Bastard 8.3.1
        1 October 2016 at 11:56 am

        You obviously don’t understand MMP and still believe the lie that National’s been spreading around that the biggest party should always win government.

        In reality it’s about alignment and NZFirst is far more aligned with Labour and the Greens than they are with National.

      • Bearded Git 8.3.2
        1 October 2016 at 12:46 pm

        @James 30+12+10=52%=Key playing golf in Hawaii

        It’s about policies and personalities James.

        • James 8.3.2.1
          1 October 2016 at 1:50 pm

          I love how you just keep assuming that 10% is going with labour.

          I don’t think it will.

          Come 2017 one of us is going to be disappointed.

          • Bearded Git 8.3.2.1.1
            1 October 2016 at 8:49 pm

            You haven’t been watching the body language. Do you really think Peters will ever forgive Key for forcing him out of parliament in 2008 with lies and rumours and the full force of the right-wing media?

            • Leftie 8.3.2.1.1.1
              2 October 2016 at 5:51 am

              No, not at all. Winston Peters hates what John key and his National government are doing, he wants them out.

      • Leftie 8.3.3
        2 October 2016 at 5:49 am

        @James.

        Andrew Little: “Let the voters decide, but we are the party of change, the Greens are a party of change, that’s what we are committed to, lets see what the voters turn up at the parliament and if we are in a position to do so, we will talk to those interested in fundamentally changing what the story is now.. We know who those parties of change are, right now.”

        “They’ve [Maori Party] shackled themselves to the National government for the last 8 years, they are as responsible as any National mp for the failure of people to get affordable houses, a decent education and all those other issues.. They’re not, right now if I think about the radar, about the parties of change, they are not on it”

        Winston Peters: “We want dramatic economic and social change to regain what this country used to have to number one number 2 first world status as a world economic and social performer, we’ve lost that, and we haven’t given up hope of getting it back again”

        Waatea 5th Estate – Labour vs NZ First – the fight for Maori votes

        <a href="http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/08/30/waatea-5th-estate-labour-vs-nz-first-the-fight-for-maori-votes/

        Judging by what Winston Peter’s said, quite frankly, anyone who still thinks Winston Peters will support this National government just isn’t listening.

        Draco T Bastard is right.

    • weka 8.4
      1 October 2016 at 4:08 pm

      I see a trend emerging where the MSM is now attacking NZF and Peters at every opportunity. Key knows that Peters hates him and knows NZF will go with Labour so he has ordered his troops to attack in order to lower the NZF vote from say 10% to 6%-this will go on for the next 12 months.

      How would that work given that most NZF voters want Labour to lead the government? If they didn’t vote for NZF what makes you think they will vote for National?

      “Witness here Audrey Young’s linkage of NZF with the Hobson’s Pledge nutters.”

      What? Here’s what she said,

      The one party that could get some benefit from it is Winston Peters’ New Zealand First – Brash even talked this week about passing on donations to the party.

      To the undoubted delight of Hobson’s Pledge, Peters’ party delayed the third readings of a couple of three treaty settlement bills recently over a provision which gives iwi representation on two standing committee of the Taranaki District Council – not the council itself which retains ultimate control.

      Both of those seem reasonable points to make about NZF.

  9. Morrissey 9
    1 October 2016 at 11:38 am

    As we might have suspected, Donald Trump
    is a member of New Zealand’s wacky ACT cult. Here’s the proof….

  10. joe90 10
    1 October 2016 at 2:32 pm

    Anyone anywhere anytime.

    National security analyst Ahmad Ghappour has called it “possibly the broadest expansion of extraterritorial surveillance power since the FBI’s expansion.” It’s an obscure change approved earlier this year which would essentially allow the government to hack an unlimited number of computers, anywhere in the world, with a single warrant. An edit to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it’s more commonly referred to just as “Rule 41.”

    https://medium.com/govtrack-insider/the-doj-will-hack-an-unlimited-number-of-computers-with-a-single-warrant-unless-this-bill-is-6d967d45eddf#.m8ahztgrt

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      1 October 2016 at 9:28 pm

      back to the use of general warrants then. History (the 1700s) repeating itself.

  11. Richard Rawshark 11
    1 October 2016 at 5:37 pm

    Whatever far right weirdo the right can wheel out pre election to laugh at , we the left can do better, behold the Mallard..

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11720743

    fair points but I just find it timely the quack appears near the rashes appearance.

    Not the two most, um, intellectually empowered of the political species.

  13. marty mars 13
    1 October 2016 at 8:33 pm

    So enjoyable watching brash gets schooled by Labour MP Louisa Wall.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/tvshows/thenation/interview-don-brash-and-louisa-wall-2016100112#.V-9TVK7vot5.facebook

    I won’t call him a dinosaur because they ruled the world for 200M years and wee humans have been around for 200,000 years or so – dinosaurs were successful. I will instead say that if he went away I’d be quite happy.

  14. Muttonbird 14
    1 October 2016 at 8:54 pm

    The National government is presiding over the worst road tolls on record. This after AD and company have attributed roading and transport infrastructure as one of the things which makes John Key such great prime minister.

    Is this part of the brighter future?

    Or is the increased road toll Labour’s fault?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/314670/september-road-toll-highest-in-seven-years

  15. Muttonbird 15
    1 October 2016 at 9:37 pm

    Good to see Naz deal to the screeching, big-nosed, Henry spawn.*

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/celebrities/84865139/naz-khanjani-shows-she-has-a-nasty-side-in-the-boxing-ring-with-impressive-win-on-debut

    * this is how Henry himself would be happy describing anyone else he sought to demean for the purposes of entertainment.

  16. repateet 16
    1 October 2016 at 9:45 pm

    Apropos the tuff about the housing situation, Auckland and Key’s “plan B”:

    How many electorates in Auckland are likely to change from National to someone else?

    How many party votes are going to have to change in Auckland from National to other parties for Key to not be Prime Minister?

    • Colonial Viper 16.1
      1 October 2016 at 9:55 pm

      unless Labour nationwide adds at least 100,000 votes to its 2014 total of 605,000 votes, it has zero chance of being a participant in the next government.

      The required number may be as high as 200,000 votes, depending on turnout.

  17. marty mars 17
    1 October 2016 at 10:29 pm

    Some light reading before bed 🙂

    “A new paper just published in Annalen der Physik — which published Albert Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity — Dmitry Podolsky, a theoretical physicist now working on aging at Harvard University, and I explain how the arrow of time ‒ indeed time itself ‒ is directly related to the nature of the observer (that is, us).

    Our paper shows that time doesn’t just exist “out there” ticking away from past to future, but rather is an emergent property that depends on the observer’s ability to preserve information about experienced events.”

    http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/09/the-arrow-of-time-its-all-in-our-heads

  18. Lloyd 18
    1 October 2016 at 10:48 pm

    Just to change the subject entirely.

    Anyone noticed the Australian PMs diatribe against renewable power as being the cause of the recent state-wide South Australian power blackout?

    The fact that there were 80,000 lightning strikes in South Australia that day and that at least 20 major power pylons were blown down doesn’t seem to have entered the plonker’s brain. Since about 50% of South Australia’s electrical generation now comes from wind turbines and there obviously was a bit of wind that day, I would suspect there was no problem with generation, merely a problem of no network to carry the electricity around.
    Instead of blaming renewables for the problem he should be looking at hardening the South Australian grid – retrofitting power pylons to stand up to wind and fitting earth wires about electricity distribution lines to act as lightning conductors. To assure the lights stay on on with the present grid – both in Australia and in New Zealand – every house needs a solar panel and battery back-up. Now that would be really effective renewables.

  19. mac1 19
    1 October 2016 at 11:30 pm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11720015

    This articles investigates an academic study into rugby coaching in NZ saying that coaches here focus on technical aspects and neglect character development.

    Much to do with our binge-drinking, and violent youth?