Open mike 03/04/2012

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, April 3rd, 2012 - 164 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post. For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up to the mike…

164 comments on “Open mike 03/04/2012 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    3 April 2012 at 6:14 am

    Media silence as activist badly hurt trying to turn back John Key’s National Party attack on the working class community of Glen Inness on behalf of the wealthy developers and speculators.

    http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/16918

    • mickysavage 1.1
      3 April 2012 at 7:07 am

      Jimmy O’Dea is a long term left activist who has been involved in a number of issues over the decades.  I hope he has a speedy and full recovery.

    • prism 1.2
      3 April 2012 at 10:35 am

      Another protester to honour along with Christine Clark.

      (from Obituaries on converge)

      The last day of the 2nd Millennium was darkened by the death of Christine Clarke. She had been run over and critically injured two days earlier by a motorist who drove through a picket line of port workers at Lyttelton (for full details, see my In Memoriam piece on Christine Clarke, in Watchdog 93, April 2000).
      The motorist concerned, Derek Paul Powell, a company manager, was chased and suffered instant justice from several enraged picketing workers. His 4WD was also damaged. The picketers were duly charged and convicted for assaulting him. He was charged with dangerous driving causing death, and then the charge was upgraded to the much more serious one of manslaughter (which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment).- Murray Horton

      • Vicky32 1.2.1
        3 April 2012 at 5:41 pm

        The motorist concerned, Derek Paul Powell, a company manager, was chased and suffered instant justice from several enraged picketing workers. His 4WD was also damaged. The picketers were duly charged and convicted for assaulting him. He was charged with dangerous driving causing death, and then the charge was upgraded to the much more serious one of manslaughter (which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment).- Murray Horton

        I remember that, but I don’t remember what became of Powell, was he convicted of manslaughter?

    • KeepOurAssetsDon'tSell. 1.3
      3 April 2012 at 11:15 am

      Hi Jenny
      Radio Live for instance is an openly hard right propaganda tool, it’s so obvious as to be disgusting.

      Under the sleaze double talk “I want to give people more choices” Shonkey means he wants to completely dismantle New Zealand’s Public sector as far as he can get away with ’till we’re a privatized nightmare as in the U$$$ and UK where he made his dodgy dinero pile.

      • felix 1.3.1
        3 April 2012 at 11:26 am

        “Radio Live for instance is an openly hard right propaganda tool”

        Nah, depends what time of the day you’re listening.

        • belladonna 1.3.1.1
          3 April 2012 at 7:10 pm

          Karyn & Andrew on Radio Live at 7pm -10pm week nights are not even vaguely hard right, more to the left I would say as is Mitch Harris on Monday-Thurs at 10pm – 1a.m. Mitch moved from the dark side into the light not so long ago and Keith Stewart on Saturday nights is also very left wing.
          I enjoy listening to talkback from a left perspective. Dont be so quick to reach conclusions that are incorrect.

          • felix 1.3.1.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 7:45 pm

            I would add Willie Jackson to that list, weekdays noon til 3. Not so sure about his mate though.

  2. bad12 2
    3 April 2012 at 6:59 am

    The economic joke that is this National Government is now openly admitting that despite its election pledges to have the Government accounts in surplus by 2014/2015 this is now just another of the Tories guesses that they got wrong,

    Blaming ”International conditions” Slippery simply refuses to take any responsibility for the present Government,s economic mismanagement,

    The continuation of ”cost cutting” using the sacking of a further tranche of civil servants as the means to attempt to recoup the 1 billion annual loss in Government revenue by National,s not-fiscally neutral tax cuts simply exacerbates the Government revenue problem deepening the recession the economy has effectively been mired in since 2008,

    This years economic miracle from National the part sale of at least one of the State,s electricity generation companies will not in any way address long term fiscal negativity as the 49% of revenue from any of the assets part sold will be lost to the Government and National have no fiscal policy to replace this,(unless National now plan to use parts of the proceeds to stem the flow of red ink bleeding from the Government accounts),

    Despite Slippery,s latest bout of earnest used car sales-man speak at the press conference where the lack of His Government,s ability to fulfill this particular election promise where the culprit is anything other than His Governments economic mis-management we see the real rat in the room of an underlying agenda where after 2014 the whole mess will be dropped in the lap of a Labour/Green Government,

    Labour/Green would do well now to lock into their thinking just what it will take to kick start the economy,return the Government accounts to a stable position and begin to implement its own social program,

    We dare suggest that the level of Government debt coupled with an un-filled hole in Government revenue at 2014 will require a financial transaction tax to bring both the debt and income problems created by National back within acceptable economic parameters…

    • vto 2.1
      3 April 2012 at 8:02 am

      ” despite its election pledges to have the Government accounts in surplus by 2014/2015 this is now just another of the Tories guesses that they got wrong,”

      It wasn’t a guess mr bad, it was a knowingly incorrect statement. Anybody with half a brain and actively involved in the economy and business was well aware that there was no improvement on the horizon when this “guess” was made. Key knew it was a bullshit statements. So did English.

      They simply lied to the public of New Zealand again at the time they made those claims.

      Like John Key did yesterday re Collins and the legitimacy of her defamation claim when he said he didn’t have the requisite legal knowledge to judge whether she had a good case. Liar and deceptor extraordinaire. If that is the case then how on earth does Key know anything about running the country when the only knowledge he has is about how to trade money? He can’t seriusly be suggesting that he does not take advice on the issues of the day. He is a liar.

      And so too is Peter Dunne and by association Pete George. Complicit in these deceptions and lies.

      liars liars liars.

      • bad12 2.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 8:31 pm

        Aha,we dont disagree with you,but,we for the purposes of legal propriety will stick with the Finance Ministers ”guessing” of the economics for now,

        Unless of course the Member for Dipton comes right on out and publicly states that He and Slippery made the whole lot up one night while sitting at the Cabinet table getting pissed on a bottle of Glen Fiddich,

        Where is the Member for Dipton by the way???cleaning out the shearing shed or something, We are always amused by a news conference featuring the Member from Dipton,they are all bound at some stage to have any of us watching to descend into fits of mad laughter as we can bank on a look crossing the Member from Diptons face along with a furrowed brow which gives a distinct impression of a man thinking ”what the fuck am I doing here and oh might as well bullshit my way through this seeing as I am”…

  3. Pete George 3
    3 April 2012 at 7:13 am

    David Shearer had seemed like a different hope in politics. But he seems to be backing the Mallard and Little approach to “perception politics” with no facts required – in fact appearing to deliberately ignore known facts.

    Unfortunately Shearer’s “new kind of politics” seems to have been an aspiratioin. Now ducked. Is David Shearer already owned by the Gotcha Gang?

    • Tigger 3.1
      3 April 2012 at 7:43 am

      Pete, you’re a shill for this government that your vile little leader is propping up. Everything you say is a piece of PR. Does Dunne pay you to stink up this place?

      • Pete George 3.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 7:52 am

        It’s got nothing to do with Dunne or UF. That’s just diversion as usual here (you know you hit a nerve when irrelevant and personal attacks come out).

        It’s about Shearer showing he was paying lipservice to a “new kind of politics” as he now openly supports dishonest attack politics.

        • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1
          3 April 2012 at 7:57 am

          What’s dishonest about it?

          Why isn’t your post a ‘gotcha’ attack on Labour?

        • mickysavage 3.1.1.2
          3 April 2012 at 8:09 am

          Let’s see, a sympathetic National reporter like John Armstrong says stuff like 

          “That someone within National’s ranks should risk dirtying the reputation of the party’s biggest asset illustrates just how bitter and Machiavellian things have become in this case. ”

          And 

          “The upshot of the subsequent claims surrounding the email leak has been virtual civil war in the party.”

          And the blogs are awash with leaks from the National Party designed to undermine Collins and Simon Lusk.

          Yet Petey suggests that Mallard and Little have no “facts”.

          Open your eyes Petey.  Do not confuse your ignorance with a lack of proof that the National Party is tearing itself apart.

          • Pete George 3.1.1.2.1
            3 April 2012 at 8:25 am

            I can see that a few Labour operatives are trying to tear National apart and bring down the Government. That nonsense is overshadowing the real issues that need to be examined.

            It’s nothing like “holding the Government to account”, it’s an attempt win power by any means, not fair but fowl.

            You’ll keep spinning the lines you’ve been given micky. I guess you’re pleased Shearer has been consumed by the same old so quickly, but do you really think your Cunliffe will lift the Labour game?

            • muzza 3.1.1.2.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 9:10 am

              Pete you are starting to touch on an interesting point, which I have raised many times here, and in other forums.

              The point is that, politics is irrelevant now, because it has deliberately been taken away from the ability of the voters to make a democratic difference. Voting does not make a difference, backing any of the main parties does not make a difference, the systems have been hyjacked decades ago, and those who sell themselves as change enablers to the electorate, nothing more than total liers. Best case scenario is that those who enter parliament with integrity, quickly wither become part of the system, or it beats them into submission quickly!

              Your leader is a classic case of where NZ politics has been taken away from the people. Sure you can argue all day that he was farily elected, and all that does is illustrate the idiocy of the folk who like those in Epsom etc will simply vote with “their mate”. PD is a traitor to NZ politics, a pocket liner, and fair weather politician who changes sides regardless of what his electorate ever wanted him to do…still they vote for the Dunny Brushm but that is another conversation.

              No NZ political party is going to save NZ, and its time for those who tread these boards to start accepting responsibility for their involvement. No matter which team you back, you are backing a team who is responsible in the past for selling out, the present and the future selling out of NZ!

            • mickysavage 3.1.1.2.1.2
              3 April 2012 at 9:10 am

              Petey 

              Address Armstrong’s comments.

              Go on, I dare you to. 

              • Pete George …
                3 April 2012 at 9:27 am

                I suspect it’s overstated, especially within caucus (obviously Boag has caused some ructions externally) but time will tell on that. What we’re seeing now is:

                – Key endorsing Collins’ right to take action on her own.
                – Shearer nailing his colours to Mallard’s mast.

                I suggest that it’s a lot riskier for Shearer, especially as he’s now supporting a political approach he recently talked against.

                Do you mind if Shearer goes down?

                Address that, go on, I dare you.

                • mickysavage …
                  3 April 2012 at 9:42 am

                  So Petey you have moved on from saying Mallard has “no facts” to saying that you suspect Armstrong’s withering comments are “overstated”.
                   
                  And it is clear that you have no background information on what is happening yet you choose to make such broad assertive comments.
                   
                  You really are a waste of bandwidth sometimes Petey.

                  • Pete George …
                    3 April 2012 at 9:54 am

                    “…you choose to make such broad assertive comments.”
                    Mallard would never do that sort of thing, would he. But I haven’t seen the facts that back up his accusations against Collins.

                    You imply you have “background” information. If so please share – do you have a link to the facts? Or are you just making baseless broad assertive comments?

                    • felix …
                      3 April 2012 at 10:29 am

                      Comparing your actions to Mallard’s actions?

                      Why?

                      Thought you weren’t a politician, Pete?

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2012 at 10:40 am

                      That’s pretty weak felix, your heart doesn’t seem to be in the game any more.

                      I’m not comparing myself to Mallard or his actions. I suspect few would want that comparison, unless as a contrast.

                    • felix …
                      3 April 2012 at 10:56 am

                      Pete.

                      micky accused you of making broad assertive comments.

                      You quoted that phrase, and said “Mallard would never do that sort of thing, would he.”

                      If that’s not you comparing your actions to Mallard’s, then what is it? What other way is there to interpret your comment, in the context it was offered, using the English language?

                      Go.

                    • felix …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:10 pm

                      Oh look, another one of Pete’s biodegradable comments.

                  • tc …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:47 pm

                    whaddya mean sometimes MS, he’s about as relevant as a kerre Wooden /shelly bridgmen opinion piece and nowhere near as funny.

            • Frank Macskasy 3.1.1.2.1.3
              3 April 2012 at 12:23 pm

              “I can see that a few Labour operatives are trying to tear National apart and bring down the Government. That nonsense is overshadowing the real issues that need to be examined.

              Really? “A few Labour Operatives” can bring down the entire government and National Party apparatus?!?!

              Not much of a government then, is it??

              Mind you, I think’re you’re kinda overstating the case, Pete: National are achieving their own destruction without much help from the Left. We’re quite content sitting back munching popcorn, and enjoying the entertainment of a government in full meltdown.

              (Pass the popcorn, please.)

              • Pete George …
                3 April 2012 at 12:30 pm

                I didn’t say they can bring the Government down, but they can try.

                I agree that National are creating problems of their own too, quite a cluster lately.

                If Labour left National to self destruct (as any Government does sooner or later) and concentrated more on rebuilding, preparing for being in Government again and demonstrating they are ready to resume leadership do you think they would become more popular faster?

            • happynz 3.1.1.2.1.4
              3 April 2012 at 8:05 pm

              not fair but fowl.

              A: No one in here but us chickens…

              B: I ain’t tellin’ ya again. I’m makin’ you an ultimatum!

              A; Ain’t no ul-tomatoes in here either…

              😀

    • Pascal's bookie 3.2
      3 April 2012 at 7:55 am

      Pete, I continue to be amazed at how much hypocrisy you can cram into such a small space.

      Your post decries gotcha politics and the politics of perception by engaging in, you guessed it, gotcha politics and the poiltics of perception.

      • vto 3.2.1
        3 April 2012 at 8:04 am

        Pete is complicit in the lies of this government. Saps the cred dry.

      • Pete George 3.2.2
        3 April 2012 at 8:19 am

        I’m not a politician.

        I had hopes that Shearer would be a breath of fresh air and rejuvenate Labour, with more positive pragmatic politics. But it appears as if he is a pawn for the same old – in fact an increase of the same old.

        Do you think Shearer is showing good leadership?

        • KJT 3.2.2.1
          3 April 2012 at 8:31 am

          As opposed to the radical Neo-liberal ones that have now been tried, and failed!

          We live in hope.

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 3.2.2.2
          3 April 2012 at 8:34 am

          I’m not a politician.

          That’s right – you show every sign of being completely unelectable. It’s the hypocrisy mostly, but also the witless trolling.

        • felix 3.2.2.3
          3 April 2012 at 9:38 am

          Pete, that’s twice in the last few days I’ve seen you deny being a politician.

          In both cases it was your answer to being accused of “playing politics” or similar.

          Is it now your contention that only a politician can be political? Are you saying that all the rest of the commenters here who you regularly accuse of “playing politics” or similar, are in fact politicians?

        • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.4
          3 April 2012 at 10:01 am

          Pete, you are number 8 on the United Party’s list; you stood in an electorate seat a few months back.

          By any resonable definition of the word, you’re a politician.

          “But it appears as if he is a pawn for the same old – in fact an increase of the same old.”

          How is that not ‘gotcha’ and ‘perception’ politics, and an attempt to tear down your political opponents through the use of unfounded smears?

          You keep saying that labour is being dishonest about this. Demonstrate how please.

          Other than assumption of bad faith, what do you base your accusation on?

          • Pete George 3.2.2.4.1
            3 April 2012 at 10:35 am

            You keep saying that labour is being dishonest about this. Demonstrate how please.

            A few weeks ago Shearer said “I want a new kind of politics, pragmatic and attentive to what works, not tied up in the squabbles of the past.”

            What he said he wanted then is different to what he’s directly involving himself in now.

            And Mallard and Little made accusations against Collins despite clear statements of denial from here and others. They supplied no facts to back up their assertions. I think that’s dishonest.

            savagemicky may turn out to be more honest and link to the facts he also seems to be claiming are out there, somewhere. As a lawyer I don’t think he would claim that making major accusations against someone, possibly defamatory, and withholding supporting facts is being honest.

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.4.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 10:49 am

              Cite the comments then.

              I heard Mallard on checkpoint, which seems to be the i/v under dispute. He explicitly stated that his beliefs were based on a source, one that had been reliable in the past.

              Are calling him a liar about that?

            • Pascal's bookie 3.2.2.4.1.2
              3 April 2012 at 10:58 am

              And Pete, I notice in your blog post that you cite stephen franks.

              Did you notice the second half of his post, which implies that Collins will be sypathetic in the eyes of many because Pullar was getting what she deserved. ie, he implies that Collins leaked it? And that’s not all he does:

              http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=4235

              And the National Party has already gained from Judith Collins’ steadiness under fire. Her determination has helped knocked the ACC claim to irrelevance. Pollling suggests that the public find it as boring as I do.

              Most New Zealanders reason instinctively that anyone sucking off “the system” forfeits their right to privacy, at least in respects relevant to any complaints about the system’s fairness to them.

              An unfairness complainer going public should have to accept that the rest of us are entitled to all the information necessary to judge the unfairness accusation in context.

              See that? He is saying that Collins actions are great politics because they distract from the real issue.

              But of course, you are so concerned about tearing down your political opponents that you can’t mention any other possibilities as to what might be going on, even in passing. Can’t even admit, even to tyourself that it’s a possibility.

              It’s all just nasty nasty lefties, 24/7.

              • Pete George …
                3 April 2012 at 11:09 am

                I agree this has distracted from the real issues with ACC and Pullar, but Mallard and Little have been at the forefront of that very distraction, haven’t they.

                Your quote includes:

                An unfairness complainer going public should have to accept that the rest of us are entitled to all the information necessary to judge the unfairness accusation in context.

                Collins will be aware that all information necessary will need to come out.

                If Mallard and Little front up with information that backs up their accusations – and that it was available to them at the time despite clear claims to the contrary by Collins – then they have nothing to worry about. And the public will know who was being honest then, won’t we.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  3 April 2012 at 11:19 am

                  Good grief.

                • McFlock …
                  3 April 2012 at 11:38 am

                  What has the rather sweet suggestion that ACC beneficiaries have no right to privacy if they complain about being shafted (as per your quote) got to do with Collins’ idiotic case?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    3 April 2012 at 11:43 am

                    Stop trying to distract from the real issues McFlock! You’re as bad as Mallard!.

                  • felix …
                    3 April 2012 at 11:46 am

                    Nothing whatsoever, but Pete likes to throw in some irrelevant shit when he’s tied himself up in knots and is about to disappear.

                    He thinks to the casual observer it might appear that he hasn’t made a complete fool of himself if he types something, anything before he runs away and pretends the thread never existed.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2012 at 11:58 am

                      That was a supremely relevant comment felix, typical of your contributions to debating on topic.

                      Don’t get too hissy when your demands are ignored, will you. You’re only sometimes useful.

                    • felix …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:09 pm

                      My comment is an entirely relevant reply to McFlock’s question, Pete, and I stand by everything in it.

                      Would you like me to provide links to back up the veracity of my assertion that you frequently behave this way?

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:25 pm

                      That was a supremely relevant comment felix, typical of your contributions to debating on topic.

                            
                      That was either a pointless contribution, or sarcasm with astounding hypocrisy. Again. Or am I being nasty? 

            • mickysavage 3.2.2.4.1.3
              3 April 2012 at 11:33 am

              Pete you do not understand.
               
              I do not have the slightest interest in showing you evidence that I may or may not have.  The fact you do not have any source of your own does not concern me.
               
              You should watch with your allegations too.  The principle in Atkinson v Lange does not extend to stupid comments.

              • Pete George …
                3 April 2012 at 11:50 am

                I do understand. You won’t back up your assertions with any facts.

                I do have a source for my “allegations” – a lack of facts to back up accusations that were made. Therefore it’s easy to see a perception of political dishonesty.

                What “allegations” should I watch? That some politicians are sometimes deliberately dishonest? It would be hard to prove that’s an unreasonable opinion wouldn’t it?

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  3 April 2012 at 12:01 pm

                  I’ve not seen you cite these ‘baseless allegations’ Pete.

                  I’d prefer a transcript, but a podcast or similar would be fine.

                  • Pete George …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:14 pm

                    Citing isn’t required if you’re holding politicians to account, or that’s what some lawyers seem to be suggesting.

                    Greg: “I do not have the slightest interest in showing you evidence that I may or may not have.”

                    Andrew: “Asked if he believed Ms Collins had leaked the letter, despite her assurances she had not, Mr Little said there were still unanswered questions. ”

                    If there are unanswered questions do you just suggest your own versions of answers?

                    It seems all you need to do is make any allegations you want to (as long as it’s your opinion of course) and then refuse to provide evidence until someone takes a defamation case against you.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:24 pm

                      Pete George finally explians his modus operandi:
                       
                      “It seems all you need to do is make any allegations you want to (as long as it’s your opinion of course) and then refuse to provide evidence until someone takes a defamation case against you.”
                       
                      Anybody want to help me start a legal fund so that we can finally shut Pete up?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:49 pm

                      Anybody want to help me start a legal fund so that we can finally shut Pete up?

                      Yeah I’d pay real money to see that.

                    • felix …
                      3 April 2012 at 1:39 pm

                      Pete George on Kiwiblog complaining about being threatened with legal action just for expressing his opinion in 3…2…1…

                    • lprent …
                      3 April 2012 at 1:40 pm

                      ..Ms Collins had leaked the letter, despite her assurances she had not..

                      Gee Pete, you don’t think that a politician won’t lie to save their job? Such an innocent. Obviously doesn’t read much history.

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2012 at 2:25 pm

                      I’m sure some politicians have lied to save their jobs, and for many other reasons.

                      Gee lprent, you don’t think that a politician won’t lie to try to destroy another politician’s job? Such an innocent.

                      (Note – that last sentence is not an allegation, it’s just a return jest in kind.)

                    • Pete George …
                      3 April 2012 at 2:39 pm

                      felix – how much do you think they’ll need to raise to get someone to shut me up? You used to try it for free didn’t you?

                  • felix …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:17 pm

                    “If there are unanswered questions do you just suggest your own versions of answers?”

                    No, you just stop asking questions because those in power, looking after the best interests of the country as a whole, will undoubtably answer them in their own good time.

        • vto 3.2.2.5
          3 April 2012 at 10:56 am

          “I’m not a politician.”

          Pete, you often cry about the tough time you get on here, but what the f$#@k do you expect when your posts continue to be as lame and weak as this? This is a perfect example of why you get that hard time. You should reflect on it and sharpen up.

          I couldn’t really believe it when I read that statement of yours. Dumbfounded would be an apt description. As Ps b says, you were on a party list and you stood in an electorate seat. In addition, you are no doubt a party member and you advocate hard for that party. You are without doubt a politician.

          Think man think.

  4. bad12 4
    3 April 2012 at 7:28 am

    Luckily for the residents of Ohariu local MP and ”Leader” of the party of 1,United Future has long ago dropped the mantle of ”being something different in politics” except of course for those with an addiction to old videos featuring worms and a fixation with the word sensible…

  5. Andrew McKay 5
    3 April 2012 at 7:47 am

    Shameless self promotion of new blog looking at resource limits, environment, peak oil and peak everything from a New Zealand perspective.

    Fracking Benefits Overblown

    Why is it that oil and gas companies such as TAG Oil and Apache are so aggressively pursuing exploration of gas fields in New Zealand when US gas prices are at a 10 year record low of US$2.176 per mBtu? In January both Chesapeake Energy and ConocoPhillips announced plans to reduce gas natural gas output and shift towards more oil drilling. Futures as far forward as December 2017 were last week trading at below the US$5 per mBtu level that most companies require to make an adequate return on capital.

    One of the reasons that natural gas production has still remained high even with these companies signalling changing tactics is that many of the wells currently producing are condensate wells. This means they not only produce natural gas but also natural gas liquids and oil. With Brent crude currently sitting at $123 a barrel and even higher prices for natural gas liquids this is more than enough to offset the low natural gas prices.

    This brings us to New Zealand, the so called “Texas of the south” . A document from TAG Oil that was presented to investors in December 2012 threw around phrases such as the East Coast “literally leaking oil and gas” and announced the potential of “billions of barrels of oil.” TAG has said it has identified almost 700,000ha of conventional and unconventional targets. These unconventional targets are both deep sea resources such as Deepwater Horizon as well as land-based rigs using the controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”

    It would appear that with gas prices so low both now and for the at least the next five years TAG Oil is hoping to strike oil and strike it big. How much to trust the “billions of barrels of oil” line is however highly debatable. It is not uncommon for any extractive resource company to inflate the economic benefits in order to garner support. Oil companies are no different. Big numbers are the proverbial carrot dangled in front of those that inhabit both local and central government. With traditionally high unemployment in the East Coast any promise of jobs is bound to make the public more accepting of controversial practices such as fracking.

    However, there is also concern about the ability for wells using fracking to provide long term economic benefits. A new well with multiple fractures costs between NZ$2.4 million and NZ$12.2 million to drill. After one year a well using fracking can have production fall by between 63 to 85 per cent compared to 25 to 40 per cent for a conventional well.

    It is clear that these foreign oil companies such as TAG and Apache are here to make a quick buck. What will be left when the wells dry up is anyone’s guess but it certainly won’t be jobs.

    http://southernlimitsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/fracking-benefits-overblown.html

    [Don’t make a habit of it – but welcome to the blogging world. — r0b]

    • Bored 5.1
      3 April 2012 at 8:04 am

      Brent Crude is at $129US today, there is money in oil whilst demand lasts…the high price is going to kill demand and any “growth”. Here we go again, batten down the hatches guys.

      Now that the price of oil and gas is going to be much higher we are heading for exploration of marginal fields that give low yields on energy invested.

      Ask yourself a couple of questions:

      1. Why is the oil industry now working marginal places like NZ so hard?
      2. Why when we have global warming is there no great move away from oil and gas?

      I walking to work now, seeya.

      • Andrew McKay 5.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 9:04 am

        Thanks r0b – point taken.

        Exactly Bored. As John Michael Greer writes in The Long Descent, we will see a number of these periods characterised by high oil prices reducing demand and shrinking economies, which in turn increases demand for oil as economies stabilise for short periods. The truth is we are in a slow decline now, it’s just that the micro data distracts a lot from the macro data.

        I’m sure you already know the answers yourself but for those who don’t:

        1. All the easy oil has been got. Oil companies are not moving increasingly into shale resources, oil sands and deepwater drilling for fun. It’s because there is no where left to turn. These reports of “massive oil field found” pale in comparison to previous finds and are often incredibly difficult and energy intensive to distract. It’s all very well finding a large field, but it doesn’t mean much when it’s uneconomical to extract, refine and export it.

        2. Because oil is a super liquid fuel. There is nothing in the world that comes close to the energy returned on investment that oil provides. No one wants to give up their standard of living and oil is almost the sole reason why we have such a high standard of living. It’s importance cannot be overstated. We can wish all we want for technology to save us but we are just as likely to have success sacrificing a cow to the Sun God. I’m interested in facts, not faith. Also very importantly, oil is a liquid fuel. We cannot fill up our cars with wind, hydro or solar energy. A move to change the world fleet to electric vehicles is out of the question in terms of the energy inputs required.

        I could go on and on but I’ll stop there 🙂

        • KeepOurAssetsDon'tSell. 5.1.1.1
          3 April 2012 at 11:10 am

          Andrew McKay
          Insightful that the hard to get oil is our last option to keep the oil age on the road.
          1+

          • Andrew McKay 5.1.1.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 2:51 pm

            The only reason that fracking has become popular over the last few years is due to the high price of oil. If for whatever reason oil dropped back to around $30 a barrel such as in 2008 these oil companies would lose a huge amount of money.

  6. logie97 6
    3 April 2012 at 7:56 am

    In an interview on National Radio this morning Pita says he is angry again as another MP initiative is undermined. When will he be so angry that he will walk?

    • Frank Macskasy 6.1
      3 April 2012 at 9:19 am

      Pita is angry? I’d say his Party members were pretty pi**ed off as well…

    • tc 6.2
      3 April 2012 at 12:54 pm

      Count the number of ‘what I am saying..’ responses to questions the jabba the Mut gives.

      Poor old Pita and turia’s Whanau Ora gravy train isn’t stopping to sprinkle taxpayer gifts where they want it to….boo hoo.

    • Anne 6.3
      3 April 2012 at 8:30 pm

      How many times has Pita and his mate, Tariana been angry now? Yet they keep going back for more.

      They remind me of PG.

      • deuto 6.3.1
        3 April 2012 at 8:54 pm

        LOL!

        Where is he, by the way? No.no.no – let sleeping PGs lie. For a long, long time.

  7. bad12 7
    3 April 2012 at 8:07 am

    The International Monetary Fund has come out with criticism of the National Governments non-action in addressing the high cost of the NZ dollar saying that the dollar is over-valued by at least 20%,

    Also in line for a serve is the National Governments anti-employment cost cutting activities with a warning from the IMF that National should not indulge in further radical attempts at balancing its books by severe cuts in its spending,

    Its obvious to anyone with the slightest amount of economic nous that the loss of employment from Government will create an immediate + in terms of Government expenditure, BUT,the unintended effects of a job lost from within Government will simply mean LESS ECONOMIC ACTIVITY in the wider community and creating job losses en masse from within Government simply creates a lot less economic activity,

    It doesnt take a mental giant to figure out what is in reality a simple economic equation,but,as National and its supporters have barely reached the giddy heights of ”BEST GUESS” as economic thinking we will break the effect of Government cost cutting via job losses from within Government service down to the equation understood even by 5 year olds,

    Sack X amount of civil servants and out in the wider community the lawn mowing crews drop a worker off the payroll as their business decreases,down the road at the pie shop another worker loses employment as the lawn mowing crews that buy lunch and smoko from them have now shrunk in size and the pie shops selling less,

    Its that simple,the tracking of a National Government exacerbated economic recession,what it simply says,understandable to even a 5 year old is that whatever the National Government saves in revenue from having sacked X civil servants it loses as much or more from the business shrinkage in the wider community along with the cost of having the numbers collecting the dole rise,

    Simple enough???the IMF understand the economics,We understand the economics,We wonder what mental blockage is possessed by Slippery and His Minister of Finance where they dont even seem to be able to grasp such simple economic truisms….

    • muzza 7.1
      3 April 2012 at 10:07 am

      “Also in line for a serve is the National Governments anti-employment cost cutting activities with a warning from the IMF that National should not indulge in further radical attempts at balancing its books by severe cuts in its spending”

      B12 – The IMF history of intervention is exactly those measures of austerity (cutting), which are demanded before bailout funds are handed over….

      Perhaps Key and co are on a re-emptive strike?

      • bad12 7.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 7:35 pm

        We are of the distinct impression that Slippery and Co simply dont give a damn about the overall economic conditions that they are creating for EVERYONE, National is afterall the Party of naked self interest and we see the whole focus of National,s economics as to simply lock as much of the country,s wealth,income and assets into the hands of their core supporters befor the inevitability of an electoral sacking of the present Government,

        Obviously with that in mind Slippery and Co are quite happy to at the end of this term drop the whole mess into the laps of a Labour/Green/NZfirst Government knowing that any party such as Labour that sees itself as reliant upon chiseling votes from the right to secure Government will be loath to reverse in any way Nationals billion dollar baby tax cuts for its rich mates,

        We see in the belated admission from Treasury that these tax cuts were NOT fiscally neutral,Minister of Finance Bill English,s admission that Nationals economics were formulated upon a guess and Slippery,s admission that his government hasnt got a snowballs chance in hell of pulling the Governments accounts out of the red by 2014/15 where the IMF warning to the National Government might have been generated from,

        incidently,initial advice from the IMF,later over-ridden by a later report from the IMF directly advised the incoming National government after the 2008 election to consider ”Quantitative Easing” as an economic tool to alleviate the worst effects of the 07/08 banking melt-down…

    • Draco T Bastard 7.2
      3 April 2012 at 3:27 pm

      The Slippery One did promise to lower wages and the only way to do that is to increase unemployment so that there’s more competition for the available jobs.

  8. Gosman 8
    3 April 2012 at 8:11 am

    Your date is screwed at the top of this Open Mike thread. We have moved into April now which I believe is the 4th month.

    • KJT 8.1
      3 April 2012 at 8:35 am

      Gosman says something that is evidence based for the first time this week.

      After all that boring and counter-factual RWNJ spin.

      Congratulations.

      Correct about the Boxer wars as well, but I have no idea, and neither does Gosman, what it has to do with the present day burglary of our economy.

      • Gosman 8.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 8:38 am

        I never mentioned anything about the Boxer wars so am unsure why you bring this up. There was also only one Boxer ‘war’ though. Again not sure why you choose to pluralise it.

        • KJT 8.1.1.1
          3 April 2012 at 8:47 am

          Because the Chinese do.

          And you have not been going on, ad infinitum, about the wars between China and the West in the Hickey thread. Almost totally irrelevant.

          • Gosman 8.1.1.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 9:11 am

            Where is your evidence that the Chinese choose to pluralise the Boxer Rebellion? I have seen nothing about this in any material I have read.

      • Jim Nald 8.1.2
        3 April 2012 at 1:09 pm

        “Boxer Wars” such as those referred to like this?

        “China’s Foreign Relations Gravest Since Boxer Wars”
        The Evening Independent
        June 3, 1925
        http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19250603&id=Ds1PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nVQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1854,1484241

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1
          3 April 2012 at 1:16 pm

          Gosman will now proceed to pretend that he hasn’t seen your post.

          • Gosman 8.1.2.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 1:30 pm

            Oh I saw it alright. It provided me with a good few seconds of merriment as I imagined the person trawling the internet to find a single article where the copywriter most likely mistakenly called the Boxer Rebellion by the wrong name. It is quite easy to dismiss actually with the simple question – How was it more than one war?

            • KJT 8.1.2.1.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 2:11 pm

              Because it was many separate incidents over time. Not one!

              The defining part of all of them was the ongoing tension between Westerners and their Chinese supporters on one side and the Chinese authorities and sometimes the boxer movement, on the other.

              Not just the most well known one in Beijing..

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

              I’ve always heard Chinese refer to them as the Boxer wars, in English. Rebellion is obviously not a popular interpretation in China.

              It is correct that Chinese objected to opium being brought into China to pay for tea and other products. Britain and other Western countries, could not afford to pay in silver “shoes” the accepted currency. Many large and influential companies such as Swires and Jardins made their fortunes smuggling opium into China.

              • Gosman …
                3 April 2012 at 2:56 pm

                You’ve heard Chinese people refer to them as the Boxer wars? Hardly very persuassive evidence there. All wars pretty much involve separate incidents. The Second world war involved a huge number of separate wars and in fact could be classified as two distinct major conflicts (Pacific and Europe) plus a number of more minor conflicts such as the that in North Africa and the Middle East. It still isn’t refered today as the Second World Wars is it. The Boxer movement actually was created and defeated within a very short space of time so calling it Wars is not accurate at all. This is distinct from the Opium Wars which involved two conflicts between the UK and China that were separated by a number of years. It is quite clear to me that you mixed up the Boxer Rebellion with the Opium Wars and are now trying to cover your mistake.

          • Gosman 8.1.2.1.2
            3 April 2012 at 1:42 pm

            I take that back to an extent. There does seem to be more than one newspaper calling them the Boxer Wars. However they are all quite old and mostly seem to be American. I also find that “boxer war” has 720 references to just 26 for “boxer wars”. “boxer rebellion” it must be stated has over 10,000 references. Regardless it certainly isn’t evidence that the Chinese call them that.

            • Bunji 8.1.2.1.2.1
              3 April 2012 at 1:52 pm

              I thought you left to do some “work” an hour ago?

              With the amount of comments you managed yesterday & today I’m glad you’re not in my employ…

              • McFlock …
                3 April 2012 at 3:17 pm

                Topsy turvey gos – he says black when others see white, he sees inefficiency where others see good, he claims to provide evidence where others see none, he works when other people take lunch, and takes about the same amount of time at work that others take for lunch.
                       
                Probably has to ask repeatedly whether his clients “want fries with that?”

  9. marsman 9
    3 April 2012 at 8:29 am

    The Guardian writes about the start of the Falklands War-
    ‘After fewer than three years in office, Thatcher had achieved little beyond tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor’.
    Sound familiar?

    • Carol 9.1
      3 April 2012 at 8:33 am

      And she didn’t achieve much in overall cuts for the overall government spending because of the rise in unemployment and the need to pay more in dole payments.

      • Gosman 9.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 8:36 am

        And yet the Tories were in power for 18 years and the Labour government that replaced them pretty much carried on with most of the policies. I’d say that was highly successful politically wouldn’t you?

        • KJT 9.1.1.1
          3 April 2012 at 8:44 am

          Tell that to someone living in Sunderland.

          Just because idiot politicians and some experts in cognitive dissonance, like yourself, think that, “if it does not work, we need more of it”, does not make it successful.

          Britain has FPP and, like us, voters were not offered alternatives to RW economic destruction.

          • Gosman 9.1.1.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 9:13 am

            Normally FPP allows a new Government to come in with rand new policies that are quite different to the ones implemented by the previous Government. However the Labour party in Britain didn’t do that really. Why is that KJT?

            • thatguynz 9.1.1.1.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 9:59 am

              “to come in with rand new policies that are”
               
              What a very Freudian slip.  Ayn would be proud of you.
               
               

              • muzza …
                3 April 2012 at 10:12 am

                LOL – Gosman caught in broad daylight, showing why his arguments are circular garbage!

                Well done Gosman, you have shown all your trolliness, why the righ/left paradigm is a total sham, and how the system is owned, and why Labour is what is now is!

                Beautiful!

              • felix …
                3 April 2012 at 10:15 am

                ahahahah!

            • KJT 9.1.1.1.1.2
              3 April 2012 at 11:50 am

              Like our Labour party which is several steps to the right of Keith Holyoak.

              Election funding by vested interest perhaps. As party membership becomes disillusioned with NACT light and leave.

              • Gosman …
                3 April 2012 at 11:58 am

                Still hasn’t explained the immense political success of Thatcher at reorientating the political landscape in the UK. Last time that happened from the left would have been the First Labour Government here and the Atlee Government in the UK. That is around 70 years ago. The left seems pretty pathetic now wouldn’t you agree?

                • KJT …
                  3 April 2012 at 12:03 pm

                  What left?
                  Labour has not been left since Norm Kirk/Rowling.

                  The shear weight of propaganda and BS from media and right wing, so called, think tanks has overwhelmed public discourse.

                  When I was young someone holding my, present, sort of social democratic opinions would have been compatible with National, let alone Labour. It shows how much the dialogue has been shifted to the loony right.

                  • Gosman …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:13 pm

                    I did a Google search on Boxer Wars KJT. Is this what you were meaning?

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzgAUzsFUSs

                    I didn’t see any obvious Chinese people in that video though. Perhaps those guy’s in the masks are.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

                      Tool.

                    • Gosman …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:22 pm

                      Yeah I agree. Someone making a statement that is unwilling to back it up with any evidence is an enormous tool. Good to have you on my side McCock.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:28 pm

                      Oh, I see what you did there. You’d better write that one down for the ages – it would be a crying shame if civilization managed to preserve Shakespeare bu lost the collected works of Gos.

                    • Gosman …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

                      Don’t worry. So long as we have someone as obsessive as you I am sure my works here won’t be lost to posterity. See you can provide a useful service for society McFlap.

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:45 pm

                      oh my god – you think I rely on anything other than the search engine? 
                           
                      You provide fresh bullshit everyday, and it seems to be a limitless resource, so I don’t need to stockpile it. We have not yet reached Peak Gos. 

        • Carol 9.1.1.2
          3 April 2012 at 8:54 am

          Stuart Hall, in his essay “The Great Moving Right Show” explained it well back in the 80s – Thatcher didn’t suceed in her stated claim of cutting government spending, but what she did suceed in doing was shifting popular opnion to the right where it embraced the neoliberal narrative.

          This essay, which draws on Hall’s essay, explains how Thatcher’s government neutralised the left by targettung the contradictions the Labour Party was trying to negotiate. Basically, the Labour Party pandered to the capitalist establishment, creating a conflict between the Labour Party and the working class and unions they should have been supporting. Thatcherism applied pressure to this fissure, and then shifted the dominant narrative to one that promised much to the masses.

          http://www.newint.org/features/1984/03/05/show/

          new internationalist 133 March 1984
          THE NEW RIGHT Why Thatcherism appeals

          The great moving right show
          Roll up, roll up to see the radical Right’s reconstruction of the British political arena. We present an edited and revised version of Stuart Hall’s essay on the contemporary weakness of the Labour Party and the fatal attraction of Mrs Thatcher.

          […]
          But once in government, social democracy is committed to finding solutions to the crisis which are capable of winning support from key sections of capital, since its solutions are always framed within the limits of capitalist survival. And this requires that the link between party and class be used not to advance but to discipline the class and organisation it represents.
          […]
          Thatcherite populism is a particularly rich mix. It combines the resonant themes of basic Toryism (nation, family, duty, authority, standards, tradition) with the aggressive themes of a revived neo-liberalism (selfinterest, competitive individualism, anti-statism). ‘Freedom of the people equals the free market’ is once again in the foreground of the conservative ideological repertoire. Around this contradictory point the authentic language of ‘Thatcherism’ has crystallised.
          […]
          Instead of confronting this contradiction at the heart of its strategy, Labour has fallen back on stressing the neutrality of the state, incarnator of the National Interest and above the struggle between the contending classes. It is precisely this abstract state which has been transformed by Mrs Thatcher into the enemy. It is ‘the State’ which has over-borrowed and overspent; fuelled inflation, fooled the people into thinking there would always be more where the last handout came from; tried to regulate things like wages and prices which are best left to the hidden hand of market forces; above all, interfered, meddled, intervened, obstructed, instructed and directed – against the essence, the genius, of the British People. It is time, she says with conviction, ‘to put people’s destinies back into their own hands’.

          And gaining control over the narrative in the media was a key part of Thatcher’s success:

          This populist language and the reconstruction of a ‘free market’ ethic has been given a sensitive public relations treatment to render it palatable. The excessively high-minded Sir Keith Joseph and the excessively broad-bottomed Rhodes Boyson, the ‘disinterested’ lead writers of The Times, The Telegraph and The Economist and the ventriloquists of populist opinion in the Mail, the Express, the Star and the Sun gave it their undivided attention. One of the country’s top advertising agencies, Saatchi and Saatchi, were called in to polish up the popular appeal of the Leader and her policies. Gaining the support of the popular press was a critical victory in the attempt to redefine the commonsense of the times: from the ‘caring society’ to the ‘by our own bootstraps’ nation.

          • Gosman 9.1.1.2.1
            3 April 2012 at 9:14 am

            So a very successful politician then. If only the left had people with the same sort of ability. Thankfully you don’t.

            • thatguynz 9.1.1.2.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 10:05 am

              “Ability” for economic destruction?  Interesting view.. 
               
              I’d actually dispute the point that the left don’t have people with that “ability” however fortunately they are much fewer and farther between than the surfeit of those on the right….

            • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.2.1.2
              3 April 2012 at 4:03 pm

              No, unlike the right we try to stay away from having psychopaths as leaders.

      • KJT 9.1.2
        3 April 2012 at 8:39 am

        The Falklands war did work as an economic stimulus and distraction from the devastation Thatcher caused at home.

        Interestingly enough, I was told by one of our Military that Britain could not mount another Falklands war. Thatcher also destroyed Britain’s commercial shipping fleet. Now outsourced to Panama and Liberia.

        • Gosman 9.1.2.1
          3 April 2012 at 9:18 am

          Given the fact they don’t have an active Aircraft Carrier at the moment I think the lack of a British owned commercial shipping fleet is the least of the problem. Anyway they won’t really need to carry out another Falklands war. The islands are well equipped with defence personnel, (as opposed to the handful of Royal Marines in 1982). The Argentinians would be crazy to attempt to invade.

          • KJT 9.1.2.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 11:53 am

            Really. Military expert as well. I am gobsmacked!

            Why do you think the NZ navy thought it necessary to buy a logistics ship when the last vestiges of New Zealand’s merchant fleet were sold out?

            Ever heard of supply lines?

            • Gosman 9.1.2.1.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 12:00 pm

              Ever heard of providing evidence for your views when asked? Where is your evidence about the Boxer rebellion being pluralised by the Chinese?

              • McFlock …
                3 April 2012 at 12:24 pm

                This deflection was brought to you by an IQ of 80 and the letter “S”.
                   
                So your bold military strategy of defending islands 8000 miles from the UK with no supply lines isn’t to be adjusted, then?.  Tool.

                • Gosman …
                  3 April 2012 at 12:37 pm

                  Why wouldn’t they have a supply line?

                  Care to supply evidence for this rather bold asertion McFluck or are you as bigger tool as KJT?

                  • McFlock …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:40 pm

                    Oh, I’m sure they’ll have a couple of logistics ships in the area and fly as much as they can in – but “stretched” was the case in 1982, and “very stretched” would be the case today.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:53 pm

                      The US would tacitly provide logistics support. The UK couldn’t do it itself.

                      And the Argentinians have a very good understanding of what went right and what went wrong for them last time. They won’t be making the same errors in any new argie-bargie with the UK. (See what I did there ha)

                    • McFlock …
                      3 April 2012 at 2:46 pm

                      Interesting point about the US – they tried to keep a lid on it 30 years ago because it was allied with both nations. But I don’t think they’ll do the active support, even just for logistics, thing. No benefit in it for them.
                          

                • Gosman …
                  3 April 2012 at 12:39 pm

                  On second thought don’t answer that. I think I already know.

                  • McFlock …
                    3 April 2012 at 12:41 pm

                    Another bold claim from Gos – that he thought twice in one day.

                    • Gosman …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:50 pm

                      Anyway it was fun playing with you McFlop but I must go and do some work now.

                      If you see KJT on here would you be a good chap and ask him about the evidence on the Boxer wars for me please? He seems to have gone all shy since I asked him for it for some reason.

                      Toodle pip till next time.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      3 April 2012 at 12:54 pm

                      Gosman, our local expert on Oriental history and our inscrutable neighbours in the north.

            • Gosman 9.1.2.1.1.2
              3 April 2012 at 12:20 pm

              Another search threw up this link

              http://www.myspace.com/video/skyhart-pictures/boxer-wars/2391916

              Again no Chinese that I could see but the Boxer’s in question could have been possibly made in China.

              Is this what you were meaning KJT?

    • Vicky32 9.2
      3 April 2012 at 6:45 pm

      Sound familiar?

      Absolutely yes!!!!

  10. bad12 10
    3 April 2012 at 8:45 am

    Addressing what the IMF says is a 20% overvaluation of the New Zealand dollar for the next Labour/Green Government will be politically problematic,

    The Governor of the reserve Bank,s role would seem to be in part to ”talk” the dollar down,this in reality has the same effect as urinating without first unzipped ones fly,in a world where markets decide attempts by the Governments banker to ”talk” things up or down are as close to useless,

    Government devaluation is what has been the accepted tool in recent history in bringing a currency to a value that makes any county,s production competitive both internally and internationally,

    Our view of Government devaluation by legislation is that it is a primitive blunt instrument which has an immediate long term negative impact upon the internal economy which in monetary terms is somewhat mollified by the increase in actual revenue to exporters but off-set by the revenue and social cost to the wider community devaluation is not particularly politically sustainable,

    However,where an overvalued currency is also coupled to an economy in recession,in essence one feeding off of the other in a negative cycle, Quantitative easing is in fact the modern intelligent economic tool which smart economics dictate can,and should,be used to address both the problems of an overvalued currency and an economy mired in recession,

    It is a simple matter of mathmatics that will enable the measurement of what amount of Quantitative Easing will create which amount of inflation within an economy,thus equating to X amount of growth and X amount of devaluation as the ”market” takes note of the increased supply of New Zealand dollars and revalues it accordingly,

    How tho to distribute such Quantitative easing through the economy,simple!!!use the Quantitative easing to address the growing problem of the cost of housing both rental and purchase building State housing in areas of high demand,

    80 years ago we had the exact same economic and social problems caused by housing shortages along with an economy mired in recession,what we have outlined above was in fact the means,the clever tools if you will that were used at the time to fix those problems…

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1
      3 April 2012 at 4:14 pm

      Need to change the monetary system else no amount of quantitative easing will work. Essentially, the government needs to start printing it’s own money without interest rather than borrowing it by selling bonds.

      • vto 10.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 4:26 pm

        “the government needs to start printing it’s own money without interest rather than borrowing it by selling bonds.”

        That is exactly right. (there would of course need to be strict controls to prevent political use of such printing)

        At the moment privately owned central banks around the world print money and lend it out at an interest rate.

        Why is this allowed to happen?

        Imagine if we did it ourselves…… Why couldn’t we? This is without a doubt the biggest rort the world has ever seen and bloody hardly nobody knows about it. It is real, it is right now and it is costing you and me fucking shitloads in interest payments to these privately-owned banks. For no reason. Big chunks of our working lives go directly to these parasites every day – it happened today, it will happen again tomorrow.

        WAKE UP EVERYBODY !!

      • bad12 10.1.2
        3 April 2012 at 6:12 pm

        Aha,which is why we advocate a Financial Transaction Tax along with a specific Quantitative easing to be spent into a specific social policy,

        A Financial Transaction Tax simply stops the need for Government to borrow while still giving an incoming Government the where-with-all to be able to implement it,s program without recourse to borrowing,

        Quantitative easing simply the Government ”printing its own money” by creating a debt between Housing NZ and Treasury/The Reserve Bank allows for what is a growing social problem to be addressed via a strengthened State house building program,

        Once alerted to a Government having increased the supply of NZ Dollars the ”markets” will simply reflect the Quantitative easing by revaluing the NZ Dollar downward to reflect that increased supply…

        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1
          3 April 2012 at 6:38 pm

          Why create the debt?

          Government creates the money, spends it where they need to and then recollects it via taxes then to get quantitative easing all the government has to do is either not collect as high taxes or print more money.

          Also, the value of the NZ$ is determined more by the interest rates being charged by the banks than by the amount of money in circulation. Drop those interest rates, by the government making money available through mortgages/business loans at no interest, and the foreign exchange value will fall even if there was no extra money in circulation.

          • bad12 10.1.2.1.1
            3 April 2012 at 7:10 pm

            Do you actually have a total understanding of what the term ”Quantitative Easing” means???

            The ”debt” created between in our example given, Housing NZ and Treasury/Reserve Bank simply ”justifies” and ”quantifies” the amount of extra money that a Government proposes to produce,

            We use such an example as what we have in all sincerity as we see a growing housing shortage +high unemployment+an economy mired in recession+a NZ Dollar overvalued by 10-20%,

            The method of ”Quantitative Easing”(the production of an amount of money from no place in particular)simply addresses and alleviates to a lesser or greater degree all those issues of economy above while asking others to have confidence in such measures as they are measurable ”money creations” designed specifically as a non-exportable solution to internal matters of economy,

            Having then built our X amount of State Owned Housing with our X amount of Quantitative Easing as Government we know have an asset that equals the debt which incidently is also owned by us as Government,

            We simply then remove the debt,in the strange world of bean counting shown as an asset on our Government books and we end up with an asset of State owned housing,

            We havnt much to say as to your economic solution except to say that your recipe of cutting taxes as you go would simply require your Government to indulge in an ongoing series of money printings and we dare say that befor such could ever be attempted you would have befor-hand instituted a One Party State and seized the means of production,distribution,and,supply…

            • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1.1.1
              3 April 2012 at 9:05 pm

              We havnt much to say as to your economic solution except to say that your recipe of cutting taxes…

              What recipe? I gave two options (there are probably more) for bringing about an increase in money within the system if the government prints the money without interest on it.

              …as you go would simply require your Government to indulge in an ongoing series of money printings…

              That’s pretty much what you’re arguing for. My use of taxes is to replace the present, non-functioning, OCR.

              …we dare say that befor such could ever be attempted you would have befor-hand instituted a One Party State and seized the means of production,distribution,and,supply…

              All the resources of the nation belong to the people of the nation and so they have a right to say how those resources are used – No parties needed. It’s called participatory democracy. Yes, it’s contrarian to the capitalists owning everything and thus having dictatorial control over everyone else’s lives.

              The ”debt” created between in our example given, Housing NZ and Treasury/Reserve Bank simply ”justifies” and ”quantifies” the amount of extra money that a Government proposes to produce,

              Right, so not actually creating a debt, merely a book entry.

              (the production of an amount of money from no place in particular)

              You do understand that that is how all money comes into being don’t you? The problem ATM is that it’s created by private banks that charge interest on it. That needs to be stopped and the government start printing the money without interest. When that happens then quantitative easing will have a significant effect upon the foreign exchange value.

              • bad12 …
                3 April 2012 at 9:36 pm

                Gosh who would have thunk it banks print money into existence,Wow,

                Debating anything with someone that cuts the intent and meaning of paragraphs and sentences into smaller and smaller pieces and then gives out non-sensical answers on the straw-men He or She has created is a waste of energy and we dont propose to do much more of it with you,

                We will add tho,your wee ”home ownership” model via tax cuts smacks of Sir(spit) Roger Douglas,s rantings which then in your latest post morphs into a rant worthy of the occupy movement,

                However,we await with bated breath your ascendency to a non-party Governed State and our only question there is how will this utopia be achieved…

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  4 April 2012 at 12:29 am

                  We will add tho,your wee ”home ownership” model via tax cuts…

                  What home ownership model via tax cuts?

                  I think you should learn to read. That way you can stop putting words into others mouths.

  11. freedom 11
    3 April 2012 at 9:02 am

    We aren’t even on the radar when it comes to TPP.

    Does NZ even get a say in whether we invite Canada to join the TPP or does the US simply decide everything these days?

    + with Obama’s recently exposed pugilistic punditry, how much weight can there be in these words:
    “Every country that’s participating is going to have to make some modifications,”

    I wonder if Obama can name a single modification that the US is making ? Perhaps changing the size of their ‘what we want today!’ notepads as they incrementally deconstruct the decaying framework of the free market. Replacing it with an armour-plated super-structure solely designed to ease the transfer of ownership into fewer and fewer hands whilst simultaneously removing the legal sovereignty of the people and by default their independence.

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1
      3 April 2012 at 4:16 pm

      Does NZ even get a say in whether we invite Canada to join the TPP or does the US simply decide everything these days?

      Silly question, especially when you have a bunch of authoritarian followers in government who will kowtow to who they perceive to be the most powerful entity around.

  12. ultra-left sectarian 12
    3 April 2012 at 9:41 am

    Does George Galloway’s upset win in Bradford’s by election hold a lesson for the NZ left?
    http://www.readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/from-bradford-to-auckland.html

  13. Jackal 13
    3 April 2012 at 11:05 am

    Fracking fuzzy logic

    Of course the bogs in-house trolls are lapping up Farrars’ fuzzy logic…

  14. prism 14
    3 April 2012 at 11:05 am

    The public hearing into a plan to build a monorail through Department of Conservation land in Fiordland has heard the 150 million dollar proposal

    The hearing is on to get the OK to put this through at great cost to the environment. So the wealthy person can say ‘I think there is a place in the world I still haven’t been. I can spare a week in my busy schedule to go south to NZ and then be whisked off to this beauty spot with no time wasting – time is money to me. Then I can cross it off my list.” This is how they think when the whole point is to get the chance to see nature, enjoy it or feel stirred by its immense presence, largely unaffected by little us.

    Venice is being loved to death with invading hordes of tourists. It is a built enironment that can stand even less the petulant demands of the wealthy tourist. The seeds of destruction of one of our beautiful places are in this speculative venture.

    And this monorail-building crowd want a 40 year lease. Long before that time we won’t have large numbers of wealthy tourists visiting here, they will come but in smaller numbers or in discrete downloads from cruise ships. This may not be viable for maintaining a luxury service at a profit.. And it looks as if NZ is not going to regain the opportunity to achieve affluence for very many, so most of us won’t be able to afford to be replacement visitors.

    There are numerous reasons why tourism could become a falling star for us. One is our remoteness. Already the British government have brought in a malicious long-haul exit tax that has started to reduce the number of valuable Brit tourists we receive. All right for Britain, conveniently placed to visit all of Europe which we helped them to keep at bay when the Nazis threatened. Now the sites are tourist spots, places of sad remembrance. We can be cut off at the knees by the right wing looking for taxes that their people may be able to stomach.

  15. captain hook 15
    3 April 2012 at 12:12 pm

    gosman the boxer was first multiplied in a di-lithium drive then passed through a chronosynclastic infandubulum.
    so there smarty pants.

  16. felix 16
    3 April 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Question three looks interesting.

    Gotta get through question one first though and that could take most of the day.

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/2/f/3/00HOH_OralQuestions-List-of-questions-for-oral-answer.htm

    edit: And we’re off to a roaring start!

  17. muzza 17
    3 April 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Anonymous..Seems to me they get used just the way Al Qaeda has. Nothing to do with the desire to regulate the internet!

    Smells a little bit like the Uruwera case, which was obviously porked in order to create some local terror fear in order to enable legislative clamp down.
    Great thing with Anonymous is that you don’t actually have to prove anything at all, in order to clamp down!

    Anonymous, even easier to manipulate, and propagate than Al Qaeda eh!

    • Clashman 17.1
      3 April 2012 at 3:04 pm

      I thought the same thing. Accusing Anonymous also helps to make the security issues less so…eg “its Anonymous, who havent they hacked, if the FBI cant keep them out, well….”

      • muzza 17.1.1
        3 April 2012 at 3:32 pm

        Virtual terrorists – What hacker group in their right mind is going to call themselves Anonymous. The name is an absolute give away IMO, as are the obvious targets, and the fact they are being fingered for every attack going around. It’s the AQ playbook in cyber-space!

  18. bad12 18
    3 April 2012 at 3:05 pm

    The Minister will withdraw and apologize!!!Crusher just copped one from the Speaker,

    There,s an interesting dynamic going on within that particular little interplay between Labour,s Charles Cauvel, Crusher Collins, the Speaker, and, Winston Peters,

    Crusher was asked by Chauvel why She was hiding behind the Privacy Commissioner,s inquiry when refusing to answer questions in the House on just who leaked the Boag email to Her to the media,

    Crusher,s answer to Chauvel was in the vein of the usual ”not in the public interest” waffle and She finished this with a allusion to ”the liars in this place”,

    It being unbecoming to have a Minister call another MP a liar in the House Chauvel objected to Speaker Lockwood Smith who refused His objection claiming that Crusher did not mention any particular MP as a liar,

    NZFirst Leader Winston Peters was all over Smith in His point of order saying that Crusher was either calling all those occupying the opposition Benches liars or referring to Her own side of the House as liars,

    End result Crusher is spanked by the Speaker and ordered to withdraw and apologize for the liar comment,

    Raises 2 points dont it, it shows that there,s a lot to be said for ”experience” in the trench fight that is a constant in the Parliaments debating chamber and perhaps Crusher,s overt willingness to speedily withdraw and apologize for the remark made might have shown that remark as a Freudian slip where She actually was referring to ”liars in this place” as those who occupy the same side of the House as She does,

    From the forensic psychologists point of view Crusher while still possessing that snide snigger as She rattles Her silver spoons in answer to such questioning also sounds bone weary,the wearyness of one under fire from all sides,(including Her own),

    Winston should with all His canny perception of others weak points in the House, picked up on this and been all over Crusher like a rash,to us Crusher sounds a bit like Nick Smith on the point of major melt-down just after being made deputy leader of National under the leadership of Brash…

  19. Draco T Bastard 19
    3 April 2012 at 4:29 pm

    McCully explains that he’s not responsible:-

    In an interview last Thursday on Morning Report, he solemnly proclaimed that – as minister – he was no more than “the purchaser of the ministry’s services.” This is free-market ideology gone mad. It is an astonishing new take on what the role of a minister is and should be, and betrays a shocking ignorance of what parliamentary government is about.

  20. ianmac 20
    3 April 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Ambrose met his lawyer yesterday morning to consider what action he could take to clear his name – one option might be asking the High Court to again consider making a declaratory judgment that he had acted entirely within the law. Another might be defamation action. Already, senior journalists from around New Zealand have indicated their willingness to support Ambrose in his pursuit of legal clarity and vindication.

    Natural justice would seem to support Ambrose in this quest to see his name cleared.
    Jonathon Milne has laid out the tea-saga process in his review.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10796192

    • marsman 20.1
      3 April 2012 at 5:55 pm

      Great. Had been thinking that Ambrose was maligned without foundation by the Police Deputy Commissioner and by John Key. Hope he takes them both to court and hope he WINS!

    • marsman 20.2
      3 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

      ianmac. Have just read the Jonathon Milne article. Ambrose got a very raw deal indeed. Key obviously saw an opportunity to exploit the situation and conned the cops into action and cynically maligned not only Ambrose but the Herald on Sunday in the process.What a thoroughly nasty little man John Key is. Hope the Herald on Sunday takes him to Court as well and wins.

    • deuto 20.3
      3 April 2012 at 9:18 pm

      Thanks for that link – it is a MUST read and I feel personally vindicated as I felt all along that this was what probably happened. I am really pleased that Ambrose has the support of others in his field.

      Having worked in the justice area, I was also appalled at the Asst Police Commissioner’s statement last week suggesting that the Police considered Ambrose essentially guilty as only a court can make that decision. Really hope that Ambrose, with the support of others, do not let this matter rest.

  21. AAMC 21
    3 April 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Hey Gosman, from Stiglitz to you… “there is no intellectual basis for the view that unfettered markets lead to efficiency..”

  22. Reagan Cline 22
    3 April 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Gosman, Yes “the left does seem pathetic now”, but left wing views are powerful and as I read history they have had more effect since the Protestant Reformation than right wing views. Right wing views are deservedly called “reactionary”.