Open mike 11/11/2014

107 comments on “Open mike 11/11/2014 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. amiriterawshark 1

   11 November 2014 at 6:59 am

   At the APEC summit, John Key makes an inappropriate joke about the escaped child molester and murderer. Remember, NZers voted this psychopath in.

   http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/key-laughs-cracks-joke-about-killers-escape-2014111106
   • CnrJoe 1.1

     11 November 2014 at 8:58 am

     This man casts a pall…again and again and again.
     • srylands 1.1.1

       11 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

       I think you should lighten up. The guy served 18 years. He is now gone. Good for everyone, including the victims and their families.
       • Murray Rawshark 1.1.1.1

         11 November 2014 at 5:39 pm

         Not good at all if he carries on his murderous kid fucking ways in Rio, although getting caught can be unpleasant. An alleged rapist was found on the footpath near where I lived one morning. He’d been gagged, bashed, impaled with a broken broomstick, and left to die. Favela justice is a bit harsh.

         And what FJK said is disgraceful. What is he, the 4th form class clown?
   • Draco T Bastard 1.2

     11 November 2014 at 10:18 am

     Psychopath makes joke about another psychopath.

     Just par for the course with our PM.
     • TheContrarian 1.2.1

       11 November 2014 at 10:40 am

       John Key might be a lot of things but the term psychopath is just thrown round with aplomb without any real consideration that you are talking about a specific relatively rare psychological disorder.

       He’s a dick, not a psychopath. But I don’t expect Draco to make any distinction given he can’t be wrong about anything.
       • ankerawshark 1.2.1.1

         11 November 2014 at 10:51 am

         Contrarian @ 1.2.1.

         Psychopathy isn’t as rare as you imply. It is also seen as being on a continuum, rather than you either have it or you don’t. Often people are referred to as having psychopathic traits.

         Certain facets of psychopathy are not associated with criminality.

         Psychopaths display ability to charm, yet are superficial, are glib and avoid taking any responsibility for when things go wrong. They are low in emotional arousal levels, so often appear very unstressed. They show low or no empathy and are without a conscious.

         It is a reasonable guess to say JK would rate somewhere on the psychopaths scale.
         • TheContrarian 1.2.1.1.1

           11 November 2014 at 11:35 am

           Not really given that it takes a examinations from experts in the fields of psychology and psychiatry to make a diagnosis of psychopathy – not blog posters who can only dissect the public life of someone based on what the see on television as opposed to someones private life an inner most thoughts.
           • ankerawshark 1.2.1.1.1.1

             11 November 2014 at 12:26 pm

             I agree diagnosis does need to be undertaken by experts in the field.

             I think though that it is not just private life and inner most thoughts that allow diagnose. Behaviour plays a significant role as well. That is because it is the psychopaths behaviour that is the most problematic part of the disorder. The psychopath doesn’t feel a whole lot of discomfort about what they do and their situation.

             Given this is it understandable that some on blog posts would speculate that JK is a psychopath. We appear to have someone who is capable of lying, fudging, showing very little stress arousal response, with some grandiose ambitions as a young man (not commensurate with any particular skills or
             • ankerawshark …

               11 November 2014 at 1:55 pm

               Had to abruptly finish what I was didn’t and didn’t finish my former comment as above.

               I think there is a lot about JK behaviour and presentation that would lead observers to wonder if he doesn’t have psychopathic traits. I certainly do.

               Do I know that for sure? No. I haven’t undertaken a clinical examination of the man.

               Is it unhelpful to refer to JK as a psychopath? Possibly. Is it unhelpful to speculate about him and psychopathy/psychopathic traits? In my opinion not. It is likely to be helpful. It is important try and understand the psychological profile of our leaders who have a lot of power over what happens.

               Would it have been helpful to know that Hitler likely had anti social personality disorder with sadistic traits and high levels of narcissism. DEFINITELY.
               • TheContrarian …

                 11 November 2014 at 1:57 pm

                 A psychopathic traits =/= being a psychopathic.

                 I know loads of glib, superficial assholes but I wouldn’t refer to any of them as a psychopath.
                 • ankerawshark …

                   11 November 2014 at 3:28 pm

                   Again just to repeat, if you read Robert Hare who is an expert in psychopathy he talks about it being on a continuum, rather than you either have it or you don’t.
           • CnrJoe 1.2.1.1.1.2

             11 November 2014 at 12:31 pm

             And how are you an expert to declare he’s not a frikken psycho?

             http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/

             https://hbr.org/2004/10/executive-psychopaths/ar/1

             http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201312/why-are-there-more-psychopaths-in-the-boardroom

             http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/20/study-1-in-25-business-leaders-may-be-psychopaths/

             http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/01/psychopath-workplace-jobs-study

             FILL YR BOOTS
             • TheContrarian …

               11 November 2014 at 1:34 pm

               https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 11 November 2014 at 1:41 pm

                 Don’t think that works as CnrJoe actually provided his proof while you’re pretty much using logical fallacies.
                 • TheContrarian …

                   11 November 2014 at 1:49 pm

                   Ahh no, Draco – “And how are you an expert to declare he’s not a frikken psycho?” is a straight burden of proof fallacy. If you are going to make positive claim that John Key is psychopath then the burden of proof is on you, not me.

                   Which logical fallacy am I using?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     11 November 2014 at 5:44 pm

                     Well, ok, proof:

                     1. John Key’s continual lying
                     2. His throat slitting gesture in parliament
                     3. His continual effort to improve the position of the 1% at the expense of the poor
                     4. His continual making of promises and then breaking them
                     5. His denial of the existence of poverty in NZ
                     6. Really terrible jokes about cannibals and pedophiles

                     All this shows the lack of conscience inherent in being a psychopath.

                     For more, see BLip’s List.
                   • TheContrarian …

                     11 November 2014 at 5:50 pm

                     That isn’t proof, Draco.

                     It’s no more proof than:

                     1. You’re tired all the time
                     2. You sleep all the time
                     3. You have no appetite
                     4. You have occasional stomach pains

                     is proof you have stomach cancer. Come back to me when you have have a medical doctorate of some kind and have treated John Key
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2014 at 5:59 pm

                     Certainly counts as supporting evidence, though.

                     As you say, a medical diagnosis would require extensive interviews reviewed by more than one highly-trained professional.

                     But there’s sure as shit something wrong with his empathy circuits, one doesn’t need to be a trained professional to see that.
                   • The Al1en …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:16 pm

                     “there’s sure as shit something wrong with his empathy circuits”

                     I don’t know about that. He’s okay ringing cam slater to share his pain at shouty feral west coasters.
                     Sure he’s a psycho and not just a bit of a wanker?
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:41 pm

                     I don’t know about that. He’s okay ringing cam slater to share his pain at shouty feral west coasters.

                     Lol.
                     While slater was useful. The real test would be if they still keep in touch now.

                     Sure he’s a psycho and not just a bit of a wanker?

                     Well, he’s definitely more than just a bit of a wanker.
                     I guess my point is that with most people/pollies one sees on tv, the probability can be ruled pretty low. Like with the guy dangling from the parliamentary gallery, most MPs on both sides of the house were pretty shook up, reacted in different ways. Key didn’t appear to give a shit.

                     I’m not even talking about immediately blaming labour and doing the throat thing – just that he wasn’t too agitated physically, and his voice was calmer than most (quite difficult to do if you’re under stress). One minute he was debating in the house, the next minute a disturbed person was dangling over the edge, and key’s shift in temperament between the two instances was a shitload less obvious than pretty much everyone else’s. That’s not normal, and makes me wary.

                     And then there’s everything else he does and says, which does nothing to contradict that impression.

                     Am I certain that if he sat down with a shrink, he’d be diagnosed as definitely being a psychopath? Hell no.

                     Would I be at all surprised?
                     Nope. But with most other pollies, on both sides of the house, I’d raise an eyebrow.
                   • The Al1en …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:53 pm

                     Didn’t expect a reply, but two things.
                     One, agreed. A lot of a wanker is more accurate descriptor though much harder to say fast five time in a row and jars like the literary equivalent of not rolling off the tongue.
                     Two, good example of how people react under stress as an insight in to their true character, and agree with the findings of your last couple of points.
                   • BM …

                     11 November 2014 at 7:11 pm

                     Slater was useful, but has rather over stayed his welcome though.

                     Like many before him, Slater thought he was bigger than the game, but because of an overblown sense of self importance and didn’t realize he’s the puppet not the puppeteer.
2. Dont worry. Be happy 2

   11 November 2014 at 7:01 am

   Can someone with the nous kindly do my homework?

   In the UK five families have the same amount of dosh as the bottom 12 million people. (Russell Brand)

   What about NZ’s richest? How many of them? Time this fact got out and about.
3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

   11 November 2014 at 7:46 am

   Oops my bad.

   Waste of time taking The Daily Mail to Open Mike: it isn’t peer reviewed.

   [karol: Well McFlock has replied on yesterday’s open mike.

   Daily Mail article.
   So I will take it to open mike for today. Moved from Lessons of the 30s and 40s thread – reply to chris73]
4. Annie 4

   11 November 2014 at 7:47 am

   Don’t worry. Be happy, true. We hear about the 1% thing, but perhaps to rephrase it to something like 5 Paraetae Drive families have more money than the whole of South Auckland, Porirua or whatever. We need to be framing things in a way that makes it more concrete and real for voters. Statistics are too abstract.
   • BM 4.1

     11 November 2014 at 7:50 am

     The politics of envy is not a vote winner in NZ.

     NZ is not the UK
     • weka 4.1.1

       11 November 2014 at 8:40 am

       I know this can be hard for you to understand but not everyone wants to be selfish and greedy
       • Tracey 4.1.1.1

         11 November 2014 at 8:42 am

         if it isnt an oft repeated phrase on WWO, KB or by the PM MB doesn’t register it.
         • felix 4.1.1.1.1

           11 November 2014 at 12:16 pm

           What do you mean by “or”?
           • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1.1

             11 November 2014 at 12:28 pm

             i didnt want to explode his brain by stating the obvious synching of views between all three… 😉

             and i meant BM not MB
       • BM 4.1.1.2

         11 November 2014 at 8:48 am

         I know this can be hard for you to understand but not everyone is bitter and twisted and hung up on how much money some stranger has.
         • Clemgeopin 4.1.1.2.1

           11 November 2014 at 9:27 am

           What will you say if that ‘stranger’ has more amount of dosh than that of the entire population of the country?
           • The Lone Haranguer 4.1.1.2.1.1

             11 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

             Nobody much on the left (Pam C being the exception) were too worried about the left possibly benefiting from the Germans millions.

             But the Labour has had a multi millionaire President a few years back.

             So are you saying that having a few million dollars is okay, or maybe a few 10s of millions is okay, but maybe 50 millions isnt okay?
             • greywarshark …

               11 November 2014 at 3:15 pm

               Money is always good to argue about you RW trills. The envy of greed or something. Pity your minds can’t grapple with anything else. Perhaps you have come into contact with virus atcv1.
             • Clemgeopin …

               11 November 2014 at 7:00 pm

               No, it isn’t. The unconrolled free market system is the biggest evil and unjustice in society.The abysmal inequality it creates between the very wealthy and the very poor is uncivilised, unfair and disgusting. The wealth and income is after all taken FROM the country, the land and from other members of society. There needs to be a cut off point beyond which individual wealth/income should not be allowed by law. How do you justify 1% of the wealthiest having half the global wealth?
               I suggest that no one should be allowed to have over 100 times the median wealth of the population in a society. Same with income. If the median wealth is 1 million dollars, the max per individual should be 100 million. If the median income is $50,000/yr, the max should be at $5,000,000/yr. The rest should go back to society in the form of tax or shared profit with workers/society. I bet you disagree.
         • karol 4.1.1.2.2

           11 November 2014 at 9:30 am

           It isn’t so much about how much money some stranger has, but about how little some stranger in South Auckland has.

           You completely ignored the people in poverty.

           And here’s a hint for you: when comparing groups of people other than oneself, it ain’t envy.
         • weka 4.1.1.2.3

           11 November 2014 at 9:50 am

           “I know this can be hard for you to understand but not everyone is bitter and twisted and hung up on how much money some stranger has.”

           That’s true, hardly anyone is. Why are you talking about this?
           • Tracey 4.1.1.2.3.1

             11 November 2014 at 10:14 am

             it appears that those clinging to the hope that “one day” they can have the wealth of those richer than them today and so vote for policies that patently don’t advance their own cause are becoming bitter and twisted to those who say “the emperor has no clothes”.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               11 November 2014 at 10:20 am

               +1
               • weka …

                 11 November 2014 at 10:56 am

                 +2
         • miravox 4.1.1.2.4

           11 November 2014 at 10:05 am

           No, not many people I know are bitter and twisted and hung up on the amount of money some stranger has.

           However, I’m quite hung up on the fact that a whole group (class) of people are accumulating a whole heap of wealth (a greater proportion of ‘pie’) at the expense of another group of people who are finding it increasingly difficult to manage household costs when compared with the periods prior to each financial crisis manufactured by the increasingly wealthy group. Because this accumulation is not sustainable and it does not support a stable, healthy society.
           • Draco T Bastard 4.1.1.2.4.1

             11 November 2014 at 10:21 am

             +111111

             We cannot afford the rich.
           • Tracey 4.1.1.2.4.2

             11 November 2014 at 10:25 am

             we had someone here the other day stating that when the pie gets bigger everyone benefits and up go low wages… and yet… ANZ makes 4th record year profit…. people laid off…

             The pie is getting HUGE for the top 1% and yet…

             Turns out the “pie” is the custard one thrown in corny clown skits.
             • Clemgeopin …

               11 November 2014 at 11:12 am

               Turns out the “pie” is the custard one thrown in corny clown skits

               Watch from 12:25 onwards…
             • goodsweat …

               11 November 2014 at 12:44 pm

               Hi Tracey, that was me. I’ve been out creating trickles.

               Banks, yep. Build little and take plenty. If the ANZ have automated a dept I can see how jobs could be lost. I don’t think they should continue to pay staff to polish seats. They do need jobs, yes. Fortunately we live in one of the most abundant countries in the world and are surrounded by opportunity.

               Having and holding onto some money rarely comes about by ripping off the vulnerable. It comes from good habits. The person on the tiniest of incomes that saves 10% of all they make will become well off. This has been proven time and time again.

               If all the money in NZ was split evenly between us all, each person might end up with about $10,000. After a year the people that gave up large sums will have grown their $10000. Those that were broke before the Great Cash Chop-up would be headed that way again.
               • Tracey …

                 11 November 2014 at 12:48 pm

                 lots of words again, no substance. you never did answer my question.

                 how will you measure this grown pie? gdp, or something else, be specific.

                 in case you wonder why i dont respond to you again after this post, its that you are on my masquerading as something you are not list… disingenuos if you will. keep sweating.
                 • goodsweat …

                   11 November 2014 at 1:05 pm

                   The advantages of increased productivity won’t need to be measured with statistics etc to be confirmed. They will be self evident.

                   If Labour can get a rocket under their house building scheme, training systems and even progress it to the stage of signed contracts under the proviso they are in government…I think that has voter pull. Walkin the talk.

                   In 12 months time personnel shortages in the huge building and related fields sector will force all wages up. A hammer-hand today could be on $10 more an hour in 12 months time and offered a chance to get her building ticket.

                   Building houses is something humans have always done, it’s a good and wholesome pursuit. Quality productivity.

                   I’m me Tracey, I’m not masquerading. Whether you wish to talk to me or not is of course entirely up to you.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 11 November 2014 at 1:43 pm

                 Having and holding onto some money rarely comes about by ripping off the vulnerable.

                 Becoming rich always involves ripping off society – it’s how we end up with poverty.
                 • goodsweat …

                   11 November 2014 at 2:16 pm

                   Hi Draco, I think there are so few really rich people about that they’re not really worth worrying about.

                   I’m all for improving the lot of most of us. I think that the ingredients for a better life lives within us, not a handful of mega fat cats.

                   What do you reckon about this idea. When the Labour building initiative starts to gather steam I reckon many of those Greenfields in outer west Auckland are going to turn into construction sites. I think a food-truck with large servings of healthy choices could do ok cruising those sites from about 10am thru to about 1pm. What do you think?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     11 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

                     I think there are so few really rich people about that they’re not really worth worrying about.

                     You believe wrong:

                     The report states:

                     *. Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
                     *. The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
                     *. The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
                     *. Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
                     *. The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
                     *. In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.

                     When it gets that bad those 85 at the top pretty much control everything and we no longer live in a democracy but an aristocracy.

                     When the Labour building initiative starts to gather steam I reckon many of those Greenfields in outer west Auckland are going to turn into construction sites.

                     I think that’d be a really bad idea as we can’t afford the sprawl – we never could.

                     I think a food-truck with large servings of healthy choices could do ok cruising those sites from about 10am thru to about 1pm. What do you think?

                     I think you’re completely fucken delusional as the people living in the outer burbs of a city are generally poor and wouldn’t be able to afford the services of the food truck.
               • Murray Rawshark …

                 11 November 2014 at 5:49 pm

                 Great, everyone could put the 10 grand towards the debt FJK has racked up. It’d pay half of it. In other words, what you’re saying is that FJK has borrowed twice as much as the worth of the whole country. You don’t get your facts from the same place as others, do you?
                 • goodsweat …

                   11 November 2014 at 6:39 pm

                   No, I’m saying that financial inequality is not a cause, it’s a by-product.

                   Those that have made use of the many opportunities in our country and have good money habits are financially comfortable. It has nothing to do with Key being an ex merchant banker or 1% of the world having lots of money.

                   I’m amused by the people that remove the reply button from the posts directed at me. You don’t have to be frightened of me Draco, just ignore my responses. I mean a food truck servicing the workmen on the building sites. I reckon a westie food truck would be a ball. Blaring out Acka Dacka instead of Mr Whippy’s Greensleeves. The Ewan Gilmore burger would need a joke ingredient like a piece of rubber lettuce.
                   • McFlock …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:50 pm

                     I’m amused by the people that remove the reply button from the posts directed at me.

                     Another legend in his own mind. 🙄
                     The comments are nested ten deep, after than the reply button disappears. Nobody’s trying to avoid your stupidity.

                     As for your comment, what bites my balls is that key and co are kicking the ladder away behing them, so the country does not provide others the many opportunities our current junta received: Dignified benefits, taxpayer-funded education, and a more equal society where a hard worker could afford to buy a home and raise their family.
                   • Murray Rawshark …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:51 pm

                     How do you remove the reply button? Don’t get too paranoid. But then, that doesn’t make any sense as a reply to me.
                   • goodsweat …

                     11 November 2014 at 6:56 pm

                     Ahhh ok thanks re: reply button. My apologies Draco.

                     We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. We are surrounded by opportunity in this country. I’m so grateful I live here. If we had to pull a number out of a hat and we are to be the next person born in the world. There is a real good chance that we’d be the son or daughter of Indian, Chinese or African parents that get by on about $100 a month.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     11 November 2014 at 7:19 pm

                     We have one of the most generous welfare systems in the world.

                     Had maybe back in the 1980s and before Richardson’s MOAB where she purposely reduced the benefits to be 20% less than what people could live on. And now this government is making it even worse.

                     We are surrounded by opportunity in this country.

                     This is a fallacy as the majority of people are too poor, in numerous ways, to access those opportunities:

                     1. Just not enough money to actually do anything and no access to a loan
                     2. Don’t have the knowledge both in technical terms and in how the system works
                     3. Even if they did have access to a loan it’s far too risky for them personally due to other commitments

                     I figure those would cover 90%+ of the population in varying degrees. Going to work for someone else isn’t really an opportunity as it can lock you into a cycle of debt.
                   • weka …

                     11 November 2014 at 7:40 pm

                     “Nobody’s trying to avoid your stupidity.”

                     Don’t be too sure.
         • Puddleglum 4.1.1.2.5

           11 November 2014 at 10:08 pm

           I can’t speak for others, but for me the issue isn’t an interpersonal one so it has nothing to do with envy.

           The concentration of wealth (and hence power) in few hands is structurally bad for any society both in terms of its effects on democratic decision making – directly and via the structures of the media – and its negative effects on large numbers of people living in an increasingly unequal society.

           Envy is neither here nor there. If anything, it’s a product of the way we’ve organised ourselves rather than a cause of problems.
     • ankerawshark 4.1.2

       11 November 2014 at 9:19 am

       BM It isn’t about envy. Really it isn’t about that at all. Envy is a human emotion that we all get to feel at some point in our lives. Maybe someone is better looking than us, or our sibling is favoured by our parents, or maybe the family down the road have a flash car.

       This is about fairness. It sickens me to think of people who have more money than they can spend, or need to have a good life, while others are having a miserable life in a miserable home, worry about how to fed themselves and their kids.

       Personally I have a very comfortable life, and very, very occasionally I feel envious of those who have more, BUT that isn’t what motivates me politically.

       I find it obscene that some people have so much and others so little. It disgusts me.
       • karol 4.1.2.1

         11 November 2014 at 9:37 am

         It’s about empathy

         – with the plight of the have nots.

         – and empathy is something our PM seems to sadly lack.
         • weka 4.1.2.1.1

           11 November 2014 at 10:09 am

           Empathy and righteous anger.

           BM’s obviously got empathy envy though 😉
       • BM 4.1.2.2

         11 November 2014 at 12:35 pm

         How much do you give to the poor?

         You lead a very comfortable life, hope you’re sharing it around.
         • North 4.1.2.2.1

           11 November 2014 at 2:18 pm

           How thick and/or nasty can you be BM ?

           In your query about how much someone or other gives to the poor all you’ve done you clown is come up with a risible twist on “Oooh look……Metiria’s got a flash coat !” So thick !

           If everyone here gave everything they’ve got to the poor it still wouldn’t help. Why ? Because the obscenities you rationalise/applaud are now so deeply entrenched that they quite defeat the best efforts of mere individuals. So nasty !

           Thick and/or nasty is not saved by religious fervour for the cult of ‘self’ BM.
         • ankerawshark 4.1.2.2.2

           11 November 2014 at 9:55 pm

           BM Yes I do share my money around and give it to the people who have less.
       • BM 4.1.2.3

         11 November 2014 at 2:11 pm

         I take it, that’s a no then?
     • minarch 4.1.3

       11 November 2014 at 9:54 am

       “The politics of envy”

       weasel words…
       • weka 4.1.3.1

         11 November 2014 at 10:16 am

         +1

         Everyone, BM is troling. He knows perfectly well all the arguments being made here. Just saying.
         • Tracey 4.1.3.1.1

           11 November 2014 at 12:30 pm

           i wonder what would happen if we had a day of nftt. would other trolls appear to extend the “dialogue” with our trolls
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.4

       11 November 2014 at 10:11 am

       Told you before, it’s not envy – it’s total disgust at these aresholes, that they’re getting away with destroying NZ for their own enrichment and aggrandizement.
       • The Lone Haranguer 4.1.4.1

         11 November 2014 at 3:13 pm

         Draco, at what level of wealth/income does a person become one of these “arseholes” of which you speak?

         Does the term ‘arseholes” include politicians and ex politicians with several houses or commercial properties?

         Does it include people in the professions who earn over say $250,000pa.

         Does it include tradies and oil field workers earning over $150,000pa

         Does it include school principals, some of whom apparently also earn those sorts of incomes?

         Does it include Gareth Morgan?
         • McFlock 4.1.4.1.1

           11 November 2014 at 5:17 pm

           Arseholes are judged on a case-by-case basis, being a function of how legitimately they got their wealth, how much of it they credit to the assistance of others and good luck (as opposed to claiming that they are the sole determinants of how wealthy they became), and whether they apparently seek to provide a hand up for others (as opposed to kicking the ladder away so others can’t have the same assistance that they themselves received).
     • Paul 4.1.5

       11 November 2014 at 7:43 pm

       Tr***
     • The Al1en 4.1.6

       11 November 2014 at 10:24 pm

       “politics of envy”

       That slogan is just reinforcing right wing/middle New Zealand put down and feel good redneckery.

       ‘The poor want our money and we must fight to keep it from them’ would be more accurate, but probably not likely to pass the focus groups and private polling.
5. RTM 5

   11 November 2014 at 8:15 am

   John Key says Islamist terrorists are a threat to the world. So why is he sending Kiwi troops off to Iraq to help them? http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2014/11/for-and-against-islamism-wests.html
6. jcuknz 6

   11 November 2014 at 8:35 am

   Trainor-Smith … Good ridance, bad rubbish ,,,, poor Brazil.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     11 November 2014 at 8:53 am

     Yes, now we can wash our hands of him entirely because of our lovely shiny personal responsibility.
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   11 November 2014 at 10:03 am

   “So wrong about so much”: Paul Krugman blasts newly empowered GOP

   But the biggest secret of the Republican triumph surely lies in the discovery that obstructionism bordering on sabotage is a winning political strategy.

   In other words, the exact same strategy that National used.
8. Anne 8

   11 November 2014 at 10:32 am

   Last night our LEC held it’s election postmortem meeting and it was interesting to note the consensus of opinion were the same as those discussed at length on this site. I will leave out the details as it was an in-house discussion – much like a caucus meeting. But when it came to the leadership contest, opinions were diverse and threatened at one point to turn a bit sour…

   I cast my vote on Sunday night after two weeks of dithering and indecision and after last night’s meeting I think I made the correct choice. Many have talked about which leader they WANT to win… but few have taken into account:

   What sort of leader does Labour actually NEED?

   Grant Robertson is a great debater… he can foot it with Key in the debating chamber. He has an engaging personality and people warm to him. In other words, he has the type of persona that draws people to him – something John Key has succeeded in doing.

   David Parker is fiercely intelligent and a quick thinker. He can foot it with English in the debating chamber. He has a dry wit and is a person of high integrity. He would be a leader we could trust to always take the principled path.

   Nanaia Mahuta is a strong force for Labour and probably the most committed left of centre thinker in the contest. She brings a fresh view to issues/strategy as evidenced by the strong Labour vote in the Maori electorates.

   But Andrew Little stood out for me as the candidate who has the best chance of pulling Labour together into one cohesive force that has a chance to out-manoeuvre National in 2017. He has the proven ability to draw all the disparate threads together into a tight team in the same way as Helen Clark was able to do between 1999 and 2008.

   This is what Labour desperately needs. A leader with the authority to hold them together and keep them that way… while at the same time utilising all the strengths and abilities of the other contenders – and the rest of caucus.

   For what its worth, I leave it here as my take on the leadership contest.
   • paddy 8.1

     11 November 2014 at 10:46 am

     I knew Andrew Little was the best option when David Cunliffe endorsed him. I still think David Cunliffe is too good to lose. Little as leader and Cunliffe given a powerful portfolio, I’d promote Parker and Mahuta but I do not trust Robertson. I do not believe he puts Labour ahead of self.
     • Hami Shearlie 8.1.1

       11 November 2014 at 5:56 pm

       +1
     • ankerawshark 8.1.2

       11 November 2014 at 9:59 pm

       Paddy @ 1 + – the David Parker comment. Stabbed Cunliffe in the back.
   • Tracey 8.2

     11 November 2014 at 12:31 pm

     thanks for contributing your thoughts….
     • weka 8.2.1

       11 November 2014 at 1:37 pm

       +1
   • Karen 8.3

     11 November 2014 at 12:44 pm

     Thanks for that Anne.

     I haven’t put my vote in yet but agree with your analysis of the attributes of the four candidates. All have faults as well, and assessing these has been the focus for me since Sunday night, having been to the hustings in Auckland as well as watching the online streaming.

     A pity we couldn’t take the best talents of each to make the perfect leader. They all have talent but in the end, like you, I have decided to go with Andrew Little as the best person to sort out divisions within caucus and the party.
     • Anne 8.3.1

       11 November 2014 at 2:32 pm

       Yes, I meant to include the party membership. We’re not blameless either. 😉
9. Manuka AOR 9

   11 November 2014 at 1:10 pm

   Kudos to Grant for calling out JK on his disgusting “joke” – Where are the opposition? Someone should be calling out JK & co on their errors a dozen times a day, every day!! http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/robertson-calls-pm-idiot-joke-over-fugitive-killer-smith-6127336
   • Manuka AOR 9.1

     11 November 2014 at 1:56 pm

     It may have been Jacinda – Good on her!
     “Labour Party corrections spokeswoman Jacinda Ardern said Key’s response to Smith absconding while on temporary release from prison was “shocking”.

     “Ardern thought the prime minister had possibly been misquoted when she first read what he was reported to have said, but then heard the audio and Key laughing. ” http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10730662/John-Keys-killer-paedophile-joke-falls-flat
10. Tracey 10

    11 November 2014 at 1:48 pm

    “..Trade Me Property head Nigel Jeffries said the latest 6.4 percent rise in the median weekly cost of renting a house in New Zealand is likely to continue for some time yet in the major cities while most provincial regions were still showing little movement.

    The Trade Me Rental price index out today shows rents rising faster than property asking prices, which indicates things are tightening up for urban tenants, he said.. …”

    that is BEFORE the impact of auckland rate increases on renters.

    so those paying 350 per week in auckland have had increases of about $18 bucks a week. is that now replacing medical insurance? car or contents insurance? one days food budget?
    • Tracey 10.1

      11 November 2014 at 2:30 pm

      phil twyfords press release on lvr.

      “.Bill English signed up to LVRs in a desperate attempt to tame the Auckland property market. But it wasn’t until after he gave the Reserve Bank the green light to use them that he asked Treasury to consider the impacts on first home buyers and the regions.

      “Unfortunately the horse had already bolted. The only winners were property speculators.

      “According to CoreLogic, 45 per cent of sales go to speculators, with just 19 per cent going to first home buyers. That’s not the country New Zealanders want to live in.

      “The LVRs are a symbol of National’s failed housing policy, badly thought through and poorly implemented,” says Phil Twyford….”
11. minarch 11

    11 November 2014 at 2:49 pm

    Disbelief as milk forecast drops again

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/63061354/Disbelief-as-milk-forecast-drops-again

    how long before we start hearing about subsidies ?
    • GregJ 11.1

      11 November 2014 at 8:45 pm

      It seems to be going a little under the radar at the moment but next year will see it really begin to bite.

      I have a brother-in-law who is the Manager of a Farm Machinery/Equipment business in the Waikato. According to him business/sales in the last 6 months has been grim (the worst since 2006) and next year is looking very, very bleak. It will probably take another 12 months for the impact to start hitting urban NZ.

      Some of it may be very slightly offset by increased beef prices and stable lamb/mutton prices although New Zealand is seeing a decrease in production of sheep by about 3-4% in 2014-2015 and declines in beef production as well.
12. goodsweat 12

    11 November 2014 at 3:20 pm

    Milking mileage from Key’s tongue in cheek jibes won’t win elections.

    If Manaia was PM I think she’d be really good at the provocative one-liner. We’d love it. Helen dropped some classics.

    I think the press the Labour Party should be chasing right now is a planned and staged clash between the leadership contenders. Each player pushing strongly for something that enjoys popular support.
    • McFlock 12.1

      11 November 2014 at 5:24 pm

      Trouble with a staged clash is that there’s a fine line between it looking staged, and on the other hand tories throwing enough of their two cents in to make the clash turn real.

      But I agree Labour in particular should push issues a lot more over the next three years – “vote positive” can be improved upon. “Vote yourself a home” might be along more productive lines 🙂
      • goodsweat 12.1.1

        11 November 2014 at 7:18 pm

        Yes, I think you’re right, they’d just need to plant the seeds of a rift and the right/MSM could spin up their own storm in the teacup. While all 4 protagonists are in on it, they maintain control. Hmmm maybe disunity, even when in rein, is not the best strategy.

        I like your ‘Vote yourself a House’ line. I think the successful contender doing their stand-ups outside the offices of large building contractors and training institutions would speak heaps to those they need to get to. There is a definite chink in National’s housing armour and it is an issue that every voter has an emotional stake in.
13. adam 13

    11 November 2014 at 3:32 pm

    China and it’s treatment of women seems to be a taboo topic, indeed talking about China and the way they treat their working people seems to be a taboo topic. So in the interests of challenging both those taboo’s, here is a wonderful article about Chinese migrant women workers.

    http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-37517/04_Schling_China.pdf
14. Draco T Bastard 14

    11 November 2014 at 4:06 pm

    Stupid as well as spineless

    But Little isn’t just being spineless here – he’s also stupid. Like marriage equality, euthanasia enjoys consistently high public support (63% in 2012, and similar levels all the way back to 1982). This is not an issue which will get Labour offside with “middle New Zealand”. Instead, like marriage equality, its a chance to get onside with them, to demonstrate that unlike the rest of Parliament (which lags public opinion precisely because of this risk aversion), they are listening. Or does Little think that a Labour MP leading a campaign on an issue which enjoys broad public support is a bad thing?

    I keep getting the feeling that Little wants things to continue as they are but with Labour in power rather than National. Really do wish these politicians would wake up to the fact that the way things are just aren’t sustainable.
    • weka 14.1

      11 November 2014 at 7:49 pm

      It also sounds like he doesn’t trust people (the public).

      And ffs Labour, why are you talking about your disagreements in public, again? Is this not an issue that should be discussed and sorted internally? Is this going to be Little’s tactic for pulling MPs into line that he doesn’t agree with?
15. Morrissey 15

    11 November 2014 at 4:08 pm

    Liars of Our Time
    No. 45: ZARA POTTS

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    “Sir Bob Geldof has assembled the best of modern musicians for this year’s record, including Ed Sheeran and One Direction.”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    —Jim Mora’s producer ZARA POTTS, enthusiastically burbling about the 2014 Band Aid song, to be released imminently.
    The Panel, Radio NZ National, Tuesday 11 November 2014

    More liars….

    No.44 President William J. Clinton: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.”
    No. 43 Assistant Commissioner Alan Boreham: “Look, integrity is absolutely critical to the New Zealand Police. It’s a core value.”
    No. 42 John Key: “We’ve been given a tremendous gift tonight, the trust and goodwill of New Zealanders, and I do not take that trust for granted.”
    
No. 41 Richard Prebble: “What I do know is that John will consider everything. He’s an honorable man….”

    See the rest of the liars HERE….
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-09102014/#comment-907232
16. Morrissey 16

    11 November 2014 at 5:00 pm

    Knife Killings and the failures of the justice system:
    Are Garth McVicar and Stephen Franks appropriate commentators on this?

    I listened with horror yesterday afternoon to that buffoon Jim Mora interviewing the Imperial Grand Wizard of the SS, Garth “The Knife” McVicar, about the knife-killer Phillip John Smith, who, to the embarrassment of the Corrections Service, has absconded to South America.

    For some reason, McVicar and his dastardly organization have decided not to endorse this particular killing. Instead, McVicar has (publicly, at least) condemned Phillip Smith, and took advantage of the lengthy timeslot granted to him yesterday to indulge in a wandery, spittle-flecked rant against outrageous liberal, pinko concepts like parole and rehabilitation.

    Today, Phillip John Smith was again the first topic for discussion on Mora’s show. The Imperial Grand Wizard was probably busy stropping his hunting knives, but the producers got hold of his friend and “legal advisor” Stephen Franks.

    Tomorrow, I expect them to interview Kyle Chapman about the failings of the justice system. In the meantime, I sent the following email to the host of this shambles….

    Please explain why you ask Garth McVicar to comment about justice issues

    Dear Jim,

    Yesterday you, or your producers, invited Garth McVicar to air his views about the Corrections Department’s mis-handling of the notorious knife-killer Phillip John Smith. I know that you—and probably your producers—are aware that, after the 2008 knife-killing of a boy in South Auckland McVicar was the notorious, loud and shameless champion of Bruce Emery, the perpetrator of that killing.

    In spite of that fact, however, you have continued to treat Garth McVicar as a serious and credible commentator on justice matters. He is, of course, the very opposite of serious and credible. Yet your producers, and producers for other Radio New Zealand National shows, have continued to ask him for his (invariably prejudiced, contemptuous and harsh) comments.

    Your—or your producers’—decision to repeatedly ask Garth McVicar to speak about anything, leave alone justice issues, is a provocation, indeed an insult, to anyone who cares about decency, integrity and justice.

    Yours in concern at the ethical standards of our public broadcaster,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point
17. Morrissey 17

    11 November 2014 at 5:24 pm

    Labour MPs tearing into hypocrisy of Hide, Garrett and Imperial Grand Wizard McVicar
    Wednesday 22 September 2010

    A video of Clayton Cosgrove’s speech is here…..
    http://thestandard.org.nz/cosgrove-slams-mcvicars-role-in-garrett-affair/

    As you watch, read the transcript from Hansard, complete with Paul Quinn’s embarrassingly inept interjections…..

    Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): There is a Māori proverb that says “To utter the name is to invoke the presence” or, to put it another way, “To steal the name is to steal something precious from a family”. My heart goes out to the family who suffered the crime of identity theft—members opposite may not like it, of course; they treat it with disrespect—perpetrated by a representative in this House, covered up by a Minister of the Crown, and protected by the highest office holder holding a seat in this Chamber as of today, the Prime Minister. The perpetrator was protected by him.

    As the Prime Minister wrapped his arms around Mr Rodney Philip Hide, did anybody believe Mr Hide’s story that he did not know the detail of Mr Garrett’s crime—that he did not know the detail that Mr Garrett stole a dead baby’s identity, and that he did not know there was a permanent suppression order? The argument that he did not know is false, and the falsehood lies in the fact that Mr Hide covered it up. The only reason Mr Hide covered it up is that there was a permanent suppression order in place. If there had not been a permanent suppression order in place, Mr Hide would have said to Mr Garrett that he would not be a member of Parliament in ACT—well, he might have.

    Paul Quinn: Aided and abetted.

    Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: But I suspect that Garth McVicar stands charged as a hypocrite today because, to use Mr Quinn’s term, he aided and abetted a man to get off a conviction with a reference. He aided and abetted a man to get permanent name suppression. As Phil Goff said, I wonder whether Garth McVicar and David Garrett were complicit in all this with Rodney Hide—

    Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am a bit confused. I understand the speaker is accusing me of aiding and abetting—

    Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order. If the member is concerned about something the member in debate is speaking about, he can take the next call. National has further calls. I apologise to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.

    Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: They were aided and abetted by Rodney Hide. Did any of those gentlemen—hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil; Hide, Garrett, and McVicar—ever consider that in putting in place, assisting, and standing up for permanent name suppression, which they all railed against in public, they had gagged a 93-year-old woman and her family from ever speaking out on this crime? Did they consider that they had tortured that family day after day, year after year, as that 93-year-old woman had to watch Mr Hide, Mr McVicar, and Mr Garrett gallop around the country calling for zero tolerance? They railed against suppression orders.

    What Mr McVicar said is very interesting, because he stands charged with utter hypocrisy. He said, on 13 January 2007: “We are here for the victims, a voice for them,”. I ask Mr McVicar whether he has rung up the 93-year-old woman and asked her to join the “sensible sentencing club”—which, to quote him, no one wants to be a member of—given that she is a victim at his hands and his best mate’s hands of a crime that was covered up by Mr Hide and protected by the Prime Minister.

    Mr McVicar said the public was sick of watching as well-known defendants appear to use their position to get lighter sentences. He also said, on 15 December 2007: “If a role model goes off the tracks, the court should be sending a deterrent message.” I wonder what Mr McVicar says today, and what the Sensible Sentencing Trust thinks of him. He never revealed the fact that he gave a character reference to get Mr Garrett off a conviction, and that he provided an excuse and character reference for permanent name suppression. I wonder what he says to the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

    He sent me an email on the night the “three strikes” legislation was passed, reminding me that he stands up for victims. Well, he stands accused of hypocrisy, and I invite him to go and meet those victims. I invite him to reconvene the victims’ conference he had in this Parliament, and explain himself to those who were there, because he is still wrapping his arms around Mr Garrett.

    I look at Mr Hide’s statements and I see a man whose truthfulness and factual statements are all over the place. On 15 September he told OneNews that obtaining the fake ID was a prank. Later, on Close Up, he was asked whether he had said it was a prank, and he said that, no, it was horrific. On 15 September Rodney Philip Hide told Close Up that he had known the circumstances of this case before Mr Garrett became a candidate. He reiterated that in the New Zealand Herald on 15 September. But on 17 September he said to Mr Garner that he could not remember whether Garrett had told him he had stolen a dead infant’s identity: “I don’t know what level of detail I knew.”

    . . . . . . . . . . .

    Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I begin my contribution to the general debate this afternoon by acknowledging with considerable sadness the passing of Sir Archie Taiaroa, and I extend my sincere condolences to his family, his friends, his colleagues, and his admirers throughout the country. He is one of the few people of whom we can say that he truly has left our country in a better state for his being a citizen of it. I want to pay the highest possible tribute to him. I know that many colleagues will be paying their respects in person to his family. I will not have that opportunity, but it is a rare privilege to be able to do that in this House.

    The last few days have been quite extraordinary in terms of this Parliament. I think that the Prime Minister, John Key, is the last remaining New Zealander who is prepared to stand up for Rodney Hide, for the ACT Party, and for David Garrett. Rodney Hide came into this House a lot larger and a lot louder than he is now, saying that he was going to stop the perk-busting of politicians. He was not a politician. He was elected as a new breed of people in this Parliament, and he was going to stamp out perk-busting. Not long after that, he was exposed, not just as a person not able to stop perk-busting but as a perk-taker himself. As long as it was done under the radar and as long as people did not know about it, he said that was all right. I recall John Key saying nothing about that at that time. He did not stand up for him, but certainly did not give him any penalty or punishment.

    David Garrett came into this House with even stronger principles, if one looked at it from the outside without any knowledge. He has now broken every single principle that he has ever campaigned on, and he did not campaign quietly. He railed against people having name suppression—absolutely railed against it. Yet he had his own name suppressed. There is a word for that. He is being charged of hypocrisy by people up and down this country. That is the charge that is in front of David Garrett at the moment. He campaigned for openness and transparency, and at the very same time he was denying the truth about his own life to the public of New Zealand. He rallied against criminals and their excuses. He said that there is no excuse for any bad behaviour, but suddenly he has found a huge number of excuses for his own behaviour, his own deceit, and his own hypocrisy.

    Rodney Hide, the leader of the ACT Party, knew about David Garrett’s actions before he came into this Parliament. But he did not worry about it, because he never knew that those actions would become public. At the very same time, and this is the worst aspect of this disgraceful behaviour, the family of the dead baby whose identity was stolen by David Garrett had to watch him deceive the country about openness and transparency, about never giving criminals any excuses, and about his “three strikes and you’re out” position. They were not able to ever raise the disgust that they felt, knowing that he had stolen the identity of their dead baby and was now parading up and down the country with exactly the opposite view, because Mr Garrett had been given name suppression—something that he opposed for other people. So for that family this Parliament should hang its head in shame. Rodney Hide should personally visit them and apologise for his support of David Garrett when he knew the facts of the situation. This behaviour cannot be passed off as a youthful prank. It was a considered theft of a dead baby’s identity. I do not think that very many other actions can be held in such low regard. I do not understand why John Key is backing Rodney Hide. He is the last-standing New Zealander to defend him.

    Read more…..

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/daily/49HansD_20100922/volume-667-week-55-wednesday-22-september-2010
18. joe90 18

    11 November 2014 at 7:02 pm

    So it’s (“supply side”) all a big fat guess.

    I have long known that Austrian economics was driven by pure philosophy in ways that other branches of economics are not. However, I did not fully realize the extent to which this was the case. I was recently reading a series of blog posts by Paul Krugman, Noah Smith, and Robert P. Murphy on the topic of inflation which led me to following quote from Ludwig Von Mises himself (emphases mine):

    Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts (Von Mises, 32).

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-things-one-learns-austrian-economic-and-praxeology-edition/
19. greywarshark 19

    11 November 2014 at 9:16 pm

    Bad news for the regions. This from AirNZ.

    An update on Air New Zealand’s regional network

    For more than two years Air New Zealand’s fleet of 19 seat aircraft has been losing more than $1 million a month. We’ve been carrying these losses while working with many regional stakeholders to improve the viability of these services but despite best efforts, some routes are simply not sustainable.

    Therefore, today I regret to announce some changes to our regional network.

    From April 2015 we will no longer fly:
    Kaitaia – Auckland
    Whangarei – Wellington
    Whakatane – Auckland
    Taupo – Wellington
    Palmerston North – Nelson
    Westport – Wellington
    We will also stop flying Hamilton – Auckland from February 2016.

    In the case of Kaitaia, Whakatane and Westport this means Air New Zealand will no longer operate to or from these airports beyond April 2015. I know this news will be disappointing for many people in these communities. It’s a decision that was not taken lightly.

    In addition to the route withdrawals we will be progressively winding down our 19 seat fleet and moving the remaining destinations to larger 50 seat aircraft, requiring an investment of $300 million in 13 new and more efficient regional aircraft. Experience tells us that when we do this we can reduce the average fare on that route by around 15%. This is good news for towns like Kerikeri, Tauranga, Rotorua, Taupo, Gisborne, Wanganui, Blenheim, Hokitika and Timaru.

    I am conscious that Air New Zealand has recently been challenged on the cost of its regional airfares even though the average regional airfare has not increased in the past five years. We are committed to regional New Zealand and in the past financial year have offered more than 550,000 regional fares under $100 – that’s nearly 200,000 more than we did five years ago.

    In a further effort to offer affordable airfares to and from the regions, we will be launching a new Regional Gotta Go fare to give regional customers new flexibility for last minute travel. From February this fare will be available for purchase from 90 minutes prior to departure. The fare will be a flat rate of $169 for a single sector journey (for example Napier to Auckland) or $249 for a connecting journey (for example Palmerston North to Timaru connecting via Wellington) for a confirmed seat.

    You can find more information about the changes announced today on our website.
    Yours sincerely,
    Christopher Luxon,
    Chief Executive Officer,
    Air New Zealand

    (Note this – Regional Gotta Go fare to give regional customers new flexibility for last minute travel.
    It may resolve the disappointingly high prices for flights for immediate necessary travel which have resulted in some jaw dropping costs. But with the small regional places cut off like this, they need to be given assistance perhaps from the returns that AirNZ makes to the government from its profits, and then perhaps they can fund a small aircraft themselves.

    But AirNZ are moving to bigger aircraft which though more fuel efficient probably even per passenger, will lessen the number of flights to ensure they are at efficient capacity, and they are heavier and therefore would use more fuel I would imaging. And I wonder if the privatising of the air fields and the landing and standing charges being demanded – which Air NZ has complained about from time to time – is actually a big factor in the higher costs for the smaller airplanes and regional destinations.)
    • tracey 19.1

      12 November 2014 at 11:21 am

      “The decision has angered Whakatane mayor Tony Bonne, particularly after the council and the Government had jointly invested $180,000 on new airport lighting following the airline’s request.

      Mr Bonne said the national carrier had previously denied having any plans to cancel flights from the district.

      “It is a blow to business, to us, our council. But our council has got the attitude when one door closes another door opens … This was a well-oiled propaganda machine that has been working on this for the last 18 months without coming clean.”

      Sir Michael Cullen, who lives in Ohope, travels to Wellington several times a week for work.

      He said he would now have to travel to Tauranga Airport to get a direct flight to Wellington.”

      What does it matter to Sir Moneybags, we will be paying his extra costs… and Key says it’s good news despite wasting taxpayer money on expansions to an airport with no planes.
      • greywarshark 19.1.1

        12 November 2014 at 12:18 pm

        The Kaitaia situation was commented on, and the speaker said that Air NZ did not offer a flight early enough in the morning for business and people generally to get to appointments in Auckland. They had to go over to Kerikeri to catch the flight down.

        Kaitaia is gagging to get more business and jobs up there. They are counting on tourism and have done a lot to bring business to them and need the airport.

        For Key and the Nacts to pass this off lightly as of no consequence is an example of a bunch of thieving frauds getting hold of the public purse, or ignorance or incompetence or actually, all of the above. They toss out Maori holus bolus when they have not done the right thing, but themselves? ‘We just give a smug smile and some brief words directing questioning away from us, and go on. We’re doing all right out of this caper. Suckers!’
20. joe90 20

    11 November 2014 at 10:57 pm

    For the first time since the 1930s the wealth of America’s top 0.1% is about to exceed that of the bottom 90%.

    On the other side of the spectrum, the fortunes of the wealthy have grown, especially at the very top. The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2% of total wealth—back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record. Those down the distribution have not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the population. Meanwhile the share of wealth held by families from the 90th to the 99th percentile has actually fallen over the last decade, though not by as much as the net worth of the bottom 90%.

    […]

    Yet one should not yet rule out the return of Mr Piketty’s “patrimonial capitalism”. The club of young rich includes not only Mark Zuckerbergs, the authors argue, but also Paris Hiltons: young heirs to previously accumulated fortunes. What’s more, the share of labour income earned by the top 0.1% appears to have peaked in 2000. In recent years the proportion of the wealth of the very rich held in the form of shares has levelled off, while that held in bonds has risen. Since the fortunes of most entrepreneurs are tied up in the stock of the firms that they found, these shifts hint that America’s biggest fortunes may be starting to have less to do with building businesses, just as Mr Piketty warned.

    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1
    • greywarshark 20.1

      12 November 2014 at 12:20 pm

      @ joe90
      Queen Victoria said “We don’t want to know that.” I know how the old duck felt now I’ve read this. Shocking to see, even though it was bound to happen soon.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS