web analytics

Open Mike 18/03/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, March 18th, 2017 - 76 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 Policy).

Step up to the mike …

76 comments on “Open Mike 18/03/2017”

  1. bwaghorn 1

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11820240

    ””It is absolutely extraordinary that they are able to get away with paying zero tax in this country. I really like Apple products – they’re incredibly innovative – but it looks like their tax department is even more innovative than their product designers,” Shaw said.”

    apple ripping nz of

    Why don’t we just have a 10% tax on all money as it leaves the country ,?

    • Antoine 1.1

      Suspect this would infringe our international commitments

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1

        So does being a tax haven.

        Thanks to the National Party, we are in no position to say jack shit about people who avoid tax.

    • dv 1.2

      Tobin tax, about same size as CC charge.

    • Carolyn_nth 1.3

      Very good work by Mr Nippert again. John Campbell has also been on the Apple case for more than a year – trying to get some explanation from Apple about their activities in NZ.

      According to Nippert, Apple has at least several dozen employees in NZ. It’s NZ sales are handled by its Aussie office – so can claim not to have a business here, I think. Legal but morally dodgy.

      “Apple aims to be a force for good and we’re proud of the contributions we’ve made in New Zealand over the past decade. Because our products and services are created, designed and engineered in the US, that’s where the vast majority of our tax is paid,” the spokesperson said.

      But aren’t most of the products made by cheap labour in Asian countries?

      Spark chief executive Simon Moutter said Apple’s zero tax bill reinforced his concerns that New Zealand’s tax base was threatened by the burgeoning wave of technology companies.

      “Some of these companies are willing to use every trick in the book to minimise the tax they pay towards the cost of running our schools, hospitals and social infrastructure,” Moutter said.


      “Whether something can be done about it is another question. The United Kingdom and Australia are taking a lead on this and it will be interesting to see how it works out for them.”

      Both Australia and Britain have gone further than the New Zealand Government and impose a diverted profits tax on companies trying to unfairly skirt national tax obligations.

      John Payne, spokesman for the big business umbrella outfit the Corporate Taxpayers Group, cautioned against radical changes to the tax regime and warned the mechanism used by Apple was also used by local exporters.

      “It’s Tax 101 in terms of activity … and it’s quid pro quo for us when we’re operating similarly in another country,” Payne said.

      But NZ companies tend not to be on the same scale as the likes of Apple. So NZ ultimately is the loser. We’d be better off if all companies, NZ and others, paid a fair share of the tax in countries where they sell products and get some income.

      • RedBaronCV 1.3.1

        Although I suspect there is some self / corporate interest there – good on Simon Moutter for sounding more engaged in the country’s welfare than our RW Nact Politicians.
        Don’t forget any local competitor is stuck with uncompetative outcomes as they pay onshore tax.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.4

      Apple’s ripping every country off. That’s why it keeps all of its profits in tax havens.

      And, yes, a Tobin Tax is a remarkably good idea if we’re going to keep offshore ownership.

      • gsays 1.4.1

        Hi draco, I seem to recall dear leader saying the havens provided $43m to those who administered them, so be relaxed.

    • infused 1.5

      The same reason you pay no tax when buying shit from overseas. Tax isn’t applied in the foreign country in most cases.

      • bwaghorn 1.5.1

        sorry you are wrong i don’t spend my time trying to avoid paying for all the good things like schools and medical help

  2. Andre 2

    Is the TOP tax policy actually a good idea? Or is it just a brainfart from a mouthy millionaire out-of-touch economist that can only see things in terms of dollars?

    http://www.top.org.nz/top1

    Most of the argument will no doubt focus on the harmful effects on the asset-rich income-poor, such as the elderly who live in areas where property values have skyrocketed. This policy suggests they build up debt to pay their imputed tax, which destroys their security and peace of mind. Or they sell up and move out, which trashes the idea of community. Basically these problems come about from viewing a home as just another capital asset, which economists only value for producing income. The alternative is a capital gains tax, as used in most of the rest of the world. This gets levied at the time of sale, at the time the property has changed from being a home to just another financial instrument.

    But this policy also favours businesses with low capital requirements such as Trademe, Infometrics etc over businesses that require substantial capital investment to produce tangible goods. For instance, this 3D printing firm http://www.rapidman.co.nz/ would have needed to invest a huge chunk up-front to start up their 3D printing business. Slamming them with a tax liability on that investment right from the beginning would be a big disincentive to starting up. But long term, it’s the actually tangible goods businesses that are better for the economy.

    http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/3/16/14939624/tesla-billion-raise-uber

    Hitting farmers with a capital tax strikes me as a particularly crap idea. It gives them yet more incentive to try to wring yet more income from their very expensive investment. Do we really want to drive more intensification by changing the tax system to favour it?

    The TOP proposal also puts a continuous burden on cashflow. This adds another difficulty to companies going though a rough patch, and may put some under that would otherwise survive.

    Seems to me a capital gains tax, as used in most of the rest of the world, is a much fairer, less distortionary way of taxing capital. I favour including everything, even family homes (with rollover provisions for family homes). It more fairly captures the income enjoyed by the founders of businesses with low capital requirements that achieve a high sell price because of intangibles such as customer base, brand, intellectual property. TOP’s proposal is light on companies such as TradeMe, Infometrics, Charlie’s, 42 Below, while it would hit hard companies like F&P that need to invest in substantial equipment.

    Finally, since capital gains taxes are widely used elsewhere, there’s plenty of other examples to look to and pick what works and eliminate the loopholes from the beginning.

    • Graeme 2.1

      My reading of their tax policy is more as a capital investment policy. The tax is on equity, so is designed to encourage property owners to borrow against their property and to invest in income generating businesses.

      A noble aspiration, and a very correct observation of what is wrong with all our wealth tied up in non-productive real estate, and Morgan’s ideas may be a solution to that, but there’s some serious transition issues around how we get there.

      Also, on the face of it, a huge structural subsidy (even more of a licence to print money) in favour of the banks.

      • Andre 2.1.1

        Encouraging debt can’t be a good thing. I know of a bunch of businesses that went under 2009/2010. Most of them were running on borrowed money. I know a bunch of businesses that survived 2009/2010 with just a bit of belt-tightening. Most of them were debt-free or nearly. The correlation was pretty good.

        Let alone encouraging more mortgage debt to avoid paying tax to live in your own home…

        Seems to me a better way to encourage investment in more productive sectors is to clean up the financial shenanigans that make non-property investment so unattractive in NZ.

        • Graeme 2.1.1.1

          Yeah, I’m not a fan of it for those reasons too. The whole thing looks like a few rather noble ideas with rather poorly thought out execution. But that’s how Morgan operates.

          You’re on the button about this problem needing a carrot approach to make productive investment safer than hence more attractive than real estate. It’s the financial markets that need the stick, not the property owners.

        • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.2

          “Encouraging debt can’t be a good thing.”

          That’s a bit too generic a statement. A lot of new investment is debt funded so any form of encouraging investment is going to encourage debt. The problem occurs when your getting a lot of debt taken on which is chasing capital gains anticipated due to expanding underlying debt levels.

          In terms of Morgans policy proposals, I doubt that the indirect measures like tax changes will have much effect. Even a capital gains tax has worked where? If we were serious about stopping the housing bubble in NZ then you need to prevent competition in taking on more debt directly. The LVR ratio is a start but needs to apply property by property (to stop competition between borrowers) and the cap could be on all borrowing, and lower. Also its still tied into the valuations, so make it loan to rental income to serious stop the competition in who can take on the biggest loan at purchase time.

          Cleaning up the share market and dodgy practices there would do a lot to improve investment, but it will take a long while to kick in, many people have been scammed in the past and have a long memory.

          • Andre 2.1.1.2.1

            I too doubt capital gains taxes will do much to slow the housing bubble inflating.

            CGT is more an equity argument about those that benefit from a societal environment that allows capital investment to be protected and grow being required to contribute something back to maintaining that society. Instead of parasitically keeping it all in their pocket like they do now in NZ.

            • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.2.1.1

              I don’t really believe in that fairness arguments. If some people are profiting off of others falling into significant indebitedness, that is unfair and problematic for society even if the government is taking a cut or even a very significant cut. If Capital Gains Taxes actually work then they need to be set at levels where they collect very little revenue because the underlying behavior is being discouraged by them. On the other hand I don’t think I have seen any examples of them working to actually achieve that.

              My reasoning around Morgan’s tax policies is that essentially he believes the market is fundamentally pretty rational and so if profit is discouraged by taxation then this behavior will desist. I don’t think the market is anywhere near that rational, there are plenty of analysis saying that essentially many property investors are already losing money with their housing speculation and would get better returns with more productive investments anyway.

          • mikesh 2.1.1.2.2

            “A lot of new investment is debt funded so any form of encouraging investment is going to encourage debt. The problem occurs when your getting a lot of debt taken on which is chasing capital gains anticipated due to expanding underlying debt levels.”

            The problem occurs when the interest paid gobbles up profit to the extent that little or no income tax is paid. Banks, however, don’t invest in businesses; they lend to investors, whether proprietors or shareholders, who do the investing. The trouble is that monies borrowed represent a personal benefit to the borrower since he is provided thereby with funds to invest in, and own, a business or property, and of course interest is the cost of that personal benefit, and personal benefits, while normally not tax deductible (this why we have fringe benefit tax), seem to have been deemed deductible in the case of interest.

            Getting rid of deductibility of interest for tax purposes would probably mitigate many problems.

            • Nic the NZer 2.1.1.2.2.1

              Banks do lend to businesses, interest is only deductible for the payer of the interest, so if interest is being deducted before profits are taxed then the business is making the interest payments.

              We don’t want investment in productive businesses because they pay more tax to the government (which is pretty much irrelevant). We want that because it avoids the economy being a contest in speculation, which is prone to busts. Getting rid of interest deductibility is unlikely to solve that problem, though it is likely to make borrowing have a higher interest cost which will likely hamper investment in productive business as well as speculation. That kind of measure needs to be carefully targeted at speculative businesses.

              • mikesh

                “Banks do lend to businesses, interest is only deductible for the payer of the interest, so if interest is being deducted before profits are taxed then the business is making the interest payments.”

                Businesses don’t pay interest; the person to whom the monies were lent, ie the proprietor, pays the interest. It doesn’t matter whether the proprietor pays it from his “business” account or from his “personal” account, it is the proprietor who is paying.

                The issue is not the effect that non deductibility would have on this or that business. The issue is whether it is fair that someone who puts his own savings into (say) a rental property, and earns a decent profit, pays a respectable amount of tax, while someone who borrows heavily to invest pays very little tax because most of his profit is being eaten up by a personal expense.

            • Antoine 2.1.1.2.2.2

              > Getting rid of deductibility of interest for tax purposes would probably mitigate many problems.

              It would send rents through the roof

              A.

              • Sabine

                too late, they are already sky high.

                • Antoine

                  Oh they can still go higher

                  • Sabine

                    of course they can, but will the government be able to continue paying the Accommodation Supplement that would allow Landlords to charge higher rents?
                    and how long before we have riots in the streets and would that be a good outcome?

                    Hmm, but maybe that is the intended outcome, destroy a bit of real estate, lock up a few people, insurance pay out, rebuild, charge higher rents.

                    so how do you like your current society vs the one i just painted?
                    cause it seems that the ‘burn down the house in which you are living’ is a thing at the moment with certain people on the left and the right.

    • mikesh 2.2

      “Seems to me a capital gains tax, as used in most of the rest of the world, is a much fairer, less distortionary way of taxing capital. I favour including everything, even family homes (with rollover provisions for family homes).”

      A capital gain is still capital, but it represents only a small part of the capital that exists.
      It is therefore difficult to see how taxing capital gains is “fairer” or “less distortionary”
      when other capital is not being taxed.

      “Finally, since capital gains taxes are widely used elsewhere, there’s plenty of other examples to look to and pick what works and eliminate the loopholes from the beginning.”

      CGTs don’t seem to have “worked” elsewhere. Countries that have them seem to have just as many problems with property as we have here. I suspect the reason most countries persist with them is because they are a relatively easy to collect form of revenue. That they do not have much effect on interest rates probably makes them popular with the banks as well.

  3. mary_a 3

    John Key is going to work for this Japanese businessman/golfing enthusiast/philanthropist/priest Handa! Now where have I heard this name before?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11820452

    • Handa was made an honorary member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2016…

      Gee, I wonder who arranged that for him?

      • greywarshark 3.1.1

        This is only connected in that it involves business people playing with their money in NZ to help them to get all of our money of us. Old news bac in 2012 but for lovers of interesting back stories might fill in gaps

        Why is urban land expensive in NZ? Because it is just a way to gain Monopoly
        money.

        https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tuesday-heartland-moves-over-toxic-nelson-loan-ch-p-127482

        The property was acquired by Victoria Properties Consolidated in 2005 for $5.4 million with an optimistic forecast of potential value of $18 million to be gleaned from section sales after rezoning….

        About 150 mainly Otago investors have money in the Victoria group, which is managed by Britannia Management, whose directors include National Party director and Canterbury Westland chairman Roger Bridge and financial adviser Craig Myles.

        Probably where some of the payout from Hubbard’s South Canterbury Finance debacle went.

  4. trump is a rude man – what possible reason other than that is there for this?

    nah nothing stacks up – he is a petulant, pathetic man-child

    “”Do you want to have a handshake?” Merkel asked Trump, leaning closer to Trump after the US president failed to respond to the requests.

    Trump continued to stare straight ahead and didn’t answer, leaving Merkel high and dry.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/90579146/donald-trump-angela-merkel-hold-first-facetoface-meeting-at-white-house

  5. The Chairman 5

    Christchurch City Council committee keen to introduce city’s own dollar.

    The committee is focusing on the Bristol Pound as a potential model.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/90493334/christchurch-city-council-committee-keen-to-introduce-citys-own-dollar

  6. Cinny 6


    Parents win ‘fight’ to get daughter into Salisbury School

    Hekia has been attempting to bully Salisbury School into closure for many years now, by denying girls the best facility in the country for their needs, instead preferring they use a ‘wrap around’ service.

    Once again we discover another story of the struggle a family has gone through over a number of years to have their daughter attend Salisbury School.
    Finally she has been excepted, Salisbury will change and improve her life and that of her family tremendously.

    Salisbury School is NZs most valuable educational facility for girls with complex needs, a wrap around service is not enough for some girls, Salisbury saves lives.

    I wish this family all the very best, your girl is going to love Salisbury, so happy you finally got there.

    A change of government will help to keep one of the most valuable schools in the country open.

    Some wrap around services must be making a fortune, Salisbury school is not about making money, it’s about improving lives. Would be interesting to know who is making money from the wrap around services, someone is.

    • JanM 6.1

      Have you any idea what ‘wrap around services’ are or are they just double speak for actually doing nothing?
      I’m not surprised they’ve been trying to shut down what seems to me to be a great school – they’ve been making it harder and harder for children with additional needs to access suitable education.
      For that matter, they’ve been busy screwing the whole education system from top to bottom to suit their own ideological ends – they’ve got to go!!!

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1

        Have you any idea what ‘wrap around services’ are or are they just double speak for actually doing nothing?

        I suspect that it’s doublespeak for the average, run of the mill school that suits most children but is detrimental to those that are outside the norm.

        • JanM 6.1.2.1

          Thanks for that – sounds like a few hours with a psychologist and on yer bike! Charming!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2.2

          A cynical piecemeal approach that has one advantage from the National Party’s perspective: it’s easier to defund.

        • Cinny 6.1.2.3

          Yesah Salisbury School is an incredible place which saves lives.

          Sometimes residential care is the best option rather than mainstream school. And the way this school prepares the girls for life is outstanding. Like when they reach a certain age they are moved to little villas to live with each other, on site with staff support, to give them life skills in a supportive controlled environment. Awesome.

          They get to experience a strong sense of community, not only in the school, but also in Richmond itself and sometimes that will be the first time some girls have ever felt a sense of community or inclusion.

          Hekia has been hell bent on closing Salisbury down, it’s more like a competition to her, the urge to win. People shouldn’t play games like that with the lives of others.

          It’s so hard for me to understand why push the wrap around services which haven’t worked for some families, rather than supporting a facility that has been up and running and making a huge difference for decades. So I begin to wonder things like… do her friends have a wrap around service business?

          Should some parents not be told about the school from the beginning as an option?

          Anyways, Salisbury is a very very good school, huge respect for all the staff whom have made it so amazing over the many years it has been operating, and looking forward to seeing the roll increase in the future, rather than more road blocks, and more suffering from the outgoing government.

          • Antoine 6.1.2.3.1

            > So I begin to wonder things like… do her friends have a wrap around service business?

            I don’t think you need to invoke corruption here – ideological blinders and a fairly hefty dose of incompetence is enough

            A.

            PS _Some_ people do well on wrap around, I understand

  7. ianmac 7

    Connections?
    Rangiora High School has Trust land. The Ministry wants to grab the control off the BOT so they can sell the land. So destroy Principal and BOT.
    Salisbury has valuable land. The Ministry wants to grab the control off the BOT so they can sell the land. So destroy Principal and BOT and strangle the entrance for the girls.
    Good on Parata! Yay!

    Edit:Meant for Cinny

  8. North 8

    How ridiculously childish is this POTUS ?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/video.cfm?c_id=1503076&gal_cid=1503076&gallery_id=173026

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

  9. Penny Bright 9

    Beware of moving from Auckland Council (Corporate) Controlled Organisations (CCOs) to Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs).

    This upcoming ‘review’ needs to, in my view, make a top priority of returning all public services provided by Auckland Council and CCOs back to ‘in house’ service provision under the genuine, not-for-profit public service model.

    Which was never broken before we had two doses of Neo-liberal ‘Rogernomic$’ reforms forced upon the public majority of Aucklanders.

    In my view, we also need a huge clean out of ex-private sector businesspeople from ‘public servant’ roles.

    How do people from the private sector ‘transmogrify’ into genuine public servants – serving the public and the public interest?

    In my view – they don’t.

    They’re from Planet ‘Private Profit’ and come from a completely different background and culture
    – make money for shareholders – look after yourself and your mates?

    Time for some BIG changes!

    OPEN THE BOOKS!

    CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS ,
    CONTRACTORS and CCOs!

    BRING COUNCIL PUBLIC SERVICES BACK ‘IN HOUSE’ UNDER THE ‘NOT-FOR-PROFIT’ PUBLIC SERVICE MODEL!

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner’

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1

      This upcoming ‘review’ needs to, in my view, make a top priority of returning all public services provided by Auckland Council and CCOs back to ‘in house’ service provision under the genuine, not-for-profit public service model.

      That’s would be the desired end result but the review should do an unbiased cost/benefit review. If they do that then moving all back in house should be a no-brainer.

      The PPP model simply costs too much for limited returns that often makes things worse.

  10. JC 10

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/90495259/Forest-Bird-holding-Environment-Southland-to-ransom-ES-chair

    “If Forest & Bird gets its way, marine farming could never be considered…”

    While “Forest & Bird Otago/Southland regional manager Sue Maturin said it did not consider marine farming to be appropriate for internationally significant and special places such as Fiordland and the wild pristine waters of Stewart Island, or the marine mammal sanctuaries for Hector’s dolphins in Curio Bay and Te Wae Wae”.

    • weka 10.1

      They’re talking about two bays by the sounds of things. Sounds reasonable.

      “He was concerned the Wellington-based organisation was “not prepared to compromise” and said court action would cost a lot of money for Southland ratepayers.”

      I’m sure all the Southland F and B members and volunteers who work in the area will love that bit.

      • JC 10.1.1

        Weka Interested to know more about 2 Bays… interested in hearing more.. Link Please…

        Seems a default setting/response whenever these sorts of questions are raised…

        “court action would cost a lot of money for Southland ratepayers.” (or any her Ratepayers… Why is is it that only Ratepayers count when these are National issues! Just like Dairy Intensification!

        Northland/Westland/Canterbury/Horowhenua… wherever… Why is it that only Ratepayers, (As I am), only allowed to comment on/have impute into “district” issues”

        Surely Marine Farming in Fiordland or Stewart Island, (as part of NZ), or the planet! If it’s unsustainable/ and/or inappropriate,( In some circumstance) (Just like Cows in the McKenzie Country, or Canterbury…) Why is it that these issues can only be allowed/commented on by _”Rate Payers”..

        When there is so much apathy locally surely there’s a need for other parties to put their 10 cents worth in. For the Good of All!

        Or can the few in Jackson’s Bay, ( or the Westland Council) determine whats Best…

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/88099749/From-national-park-to-overseas-Plan-to-export-billions-of-litres-of-West-Coast-water

        • weka 10.1.1.1

          I only know about Curio and Te Waewae Bays issues from the article (although I have been to both places too). I trust F and B’s judgement. Hopefully Robert Guyton will comment. He would also know if there is a place for non-rate payers to have input.

          I also think getting it written into the Regional Policy Statement is critical, because so much time, energy, effort and resource is being wasted having to refight these battles over and over and over.

        • weka 10.1.2.1

          My concern is that too many people are saying we need to put a price on water. I think we should have a moratorium on all new exports until we sort this out.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1.1

            If we’re going to keep with a market system then we most definitely need to put a price on it.

            Me, I’d like to put science on it and determine just how much water we can use before it becomes unsustainable.

            I’m also pretty sure that we’re well into the unsustainable usage now and it’s just getting worse as the farms suck up more water and the water bottlers export it.

            • weka 10.1.2.1.1.1

              “If we’re going to keep with a market system then we most definitely need to put a price on it”

              Quite. Which is why I think focussing on the price rather than a moratorium is buying into neoliberal framing. Have the conversation first about water being life, then talk about the limits, then see what if any price is needed. But then I think bottling water for profit is up there in terms of evil alongside Monsanto or chopping down rainforest to make burgers.

              “Me, I’d like to put science on it and determine just how much water we can use before it becomes unsustainable.

              I’m also pretty sure that we’re well into the unsustainable usage now and it’s just getting worse as the farms suck up more water and the water bottlers export it.”

              I also believe we are well past anything remotely sustainable. I’m not sure we could even determine what sustainable is under the current system. Industrial export dairying would have to stop for a start, and no-one even wants to talk about that apart from those of us who have nothing to lose. And Rachel Steward 🙂

            • Antoine 10.1.2.1.1.2

              It is very little water that the bottlers are exporting. By all means worry about the farms but I really wouldn’t lose sleep over the bottling

              • weka

                Look at the bigger picture. Bottled water is a pollutant because of plastic’s accumulation in the environment (e.g. the Pacific gyre), and because plastic is an endocrine disruptor.

                Exporting water has a ridiculous carbon cost. It actively supports the despoilment of local aquifers and watersheds in the places it is being sold. There is a reason people need to ship water from here. It’s daft beyond all reasoning to be moving water from one side of the planet to another using fossil fuels, but even if that were sustainable, it doesn’t get around why people need the water in the first place. Making money off other people’s destruction of the environment is not only amoral, it’s going to back lash against us. You think people with bigger sticks won’t come and take water from us if we let the civilisation get to the point of mass water wars?

                “It is very little water that the bottlers are exporting.”

                That argument I am not convince about. It’s the overall take from a catchment that counts, and if an aquifer is depleting (e.g. farming), then taking out water for bottling is still a further depletion. We also don’t know what the demand will be going forward except that it’s most likely to increase and may increase exponentially. We should be setting limits now, not doing what we have done with dairy and seeing how far we can push the plunder. From what I understand replenishing an aquifer is not a quick or easy thing, and by the time we get to that point we will be well into direct climate change issues.

                We’re already at the point of fucking with the groundwater beyond our ken,

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/article.cfm?c_id=16&objectid=11705149

                • Antoine

                  Well, I sympathise with your desire for better water management

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    But, like all RWNJs, don’t like the idea that there are real physical limits that we need to live within.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    I dont have a problem with that idea

                    That is not the way that you come across with your ‘sympathy’ nor your excusing of water bottlers.

                    • Antoine

                      Everyone agrees that the world has real physical limits. The interesting bit starts when you talk about what those limits are, how close we are to exceeding them, and what should be done about it.

                      My point is that water bottling (as opposed to dairy) takes you only a very little closer to reaching a hard limit.

                      I understand Weka’s rejoinder however.

                      A.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Everyone agrees that the world has real physical limits.

                    That’s not actually true. Many of the conservative bent don’t think that the world has limits. They’re easy to spot as they insist that we can just keep using more and more of the worlds limited resources with consequences.

                    Bottling water is fine because it uses so little. Owning and running a car is fine because it uses so little.

                    They don’t seem to understand the effect of multiplication and that it’s not just a single bottling plant and just one car being but many. That the demands upon those scarce resources isn’t just one thing but many and they all have their cost that reduces amount available.

                    You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

                    But very few people understand that. Even, IMO, most economists don’t get it despite it being at the root of their profession.

                    My point is that water bottling (as opposed to dairy) takes you only a very little closer to reaching a hard limit.

                    But what is the limit? Without knowing that how can you say that water bottling doesn’t take us over it?

              • Draco T Bastard

                Every little bit counts.

                Watercare aren’t asking for one person to save a lot, they’re asking everyone to save a little which will add up to a lot.

  11. feed your head – great vocal – ‘Grace Slick’s isolated vocals tracks for “White Rabbit.’

    https://youtu.be/eChgEiovCww

    why? – just a point – does ‘why’ need a question mark?

    anyway – we must look at things from different angles – we can do it with a song and with a few other things as well…

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts