Open mike 20/11/09

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 20th, 2009 - 15 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

mike

Topics of interest, announcements, general discussion. The usual rules apply (see the link to Policy in the banner).

Step right up…

15 comments on “Open mike 20/11/09 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jenny 1
    20 November 2009 at 7:29 am

    Yarrows.

    If their ever was a case, where the 9 day fortnight should be implemented, this is it.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3081018/Gutted-redundant-staff-leave

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3081004/Tears-flow-as-Manaia-bakery-cuts-hit

    The question is, why isn’t it?

    Is the Nact government only in support of this policy on paper? (as a sop to the unions)

    Have the unions lost the will to push for the NDF to be implemented, where it is needed?

    Maybe The Standard readers could let us know?

    • The Voice of Reason 1.1
      20 November 2009 at 8:12 am

      It was considered, but rejected. This is not a temporary loss of work that can be got through by a month of short working weeks. While the supply of bread to the kiwi market is important, Yarrows are primarily an exporting company.

      The company has picked up a massive contract to supply bread sticks to Subway in Oz and Asia but as part of the deal, were required to open a plant in Sydney. This has taken away a significant part of the work previously done in Manaia and the high dollar has meant Yarrows have not been able to fill the gap with other overseas contracts as they had hoped.

      So it’s not the lack of a 9 day fortnight that has cost these jobs, it’s the failure to control the Kiwi dollar. A familiar story for NZ exporters, I’m afraid.

      • prism 1.1.1
        20 November 2009 at 10:04 am

        TVR This trend to blend with Australia where will it end? So much of our active productive business is drawn there, leaving us with retail and services(farming and tourism apart), often also owned by Australians and if we get freer with USA probably the rest there. I wonder how far we can go and still have a country left, it will just be the land won’t it, our hearts will be in not in San Fransisco but more likely Sydney and Canberra. It is interesting to wonder whether we shouldn’t be conducting conferences about statehood for NZ.

      • Jenny 1.1.2
        20 November 2009 at 8:30 pm

        The Voice of Reason, replies “It was considered, but rejected.”

        I would like to ask;

        Considered by who?

        Rejected by who?

        The employer?

        The government?

        The workers?

        Also the NDF scheme is not for one month, but for 6 months.

        Who knows what could happen in 6 months.

        It is quite possible that the “high dollar” could drop enough to make a difference.

        Also the recession could lift, which would lift demand.

        At the very least, the workforce would have half a year to plan (and save) for something else.

        Voice of Reason, speaks as if they know the details of where and when this decision was made. Logically therefore VOR probably knows who made this decision.

        Obviously the workers would not be in any rush to join the dole queues.

        Which logically leaves either the employer or the Government, who “considered, but rejected it.”

        If it was the government, it would be a good exposure of the two faced nature of the Key administration, if this backtrack was exposed.

        So how about it, Voice of Reason; Why not, out the people behind this decision.

  2. Pascal's bookie 2
    20 November 2009 at 8:14 am

    Funny.

    Texas’ gay marriage ban may have banned all marriages

    The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

    “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

    (emphasis, mine)

    Har har . Stupid culture warriors.

  4. prism 4
    20 November 2009 at 10:15 am

    Wondered if someone had time to explain the cap’n’trade term as in –
    “Iprent – The cap’n’trade was purely put in play to try to get some agreement across political boundaries by letting the ‘market’ set the price

  5. Bill 5
    20 November 2009 at 11:20 am

    This is ‘better’…more analytical… answering questions such as ‘What is cap and trade?’ What are carbon offsets?’ What’s wrong with c&t? ‘Who profits from c&t? etc, etc…

  6. Armchair Critic 6
    20 November 2009 at 12:43 pm

    http://www.lgc.govt.nz/lgcwebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Auckland-Governance-Proposals-for-Wards-Local-Boards-and-Boundaries-for-Auckland!OpenDocument
    The disorganisation of Auckland continues, unabated.
    Neither National nor ACT have the courage to mention it on their websites yet.

    • gingercrush 6.1
      20 November 2009 at 1:19 pm

      Those maps are horrid. I can’t work out where certain suburbs lie and as I don’t live in Auckland and only been there a few times. Its not very clear where the likes of Remera or Epsom are lying. Epsom it would appear is in Maungawhai-Hauraki Gulf Ward and Remuera is part of Orakei-Maungakiekie

  7. Quoth the Raven 7
    20 November 2009 at 12:45 pm

    Here is an article from way back in 2004 about the housing bubble: Housing: Too Good to be True I think it’s timely considering the talk of NZs monetary policy and shows the insight of the Austrians – Mises after all predicted the great depression.

    Of course the cause of higher home prices is that the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates, and thus mortgage rates, at historically low rates so that people find it easier to finance homes. In fact, despite an 18% increase in home prices since 2001, the median monthly payment remained the same at $789/month and the “median payment as a percentage of income” has actually fallen. This is the magic of monetary inflation, courtesy of Alan Greenspan.

    Given the government’s encouragement of lax lending practices, home prices could crash, bankruptcies would increase, and financial companies, including the government-sponsored mortgage companies, might require another taxpayer bailout.

  8. prism 8
    20 November 2009 at 2:46 pm

    If –
    *firms could not offer no deposit, or deferred instalments on major purchases,
    *if people had to show creditworthiness before the sale could be made,
    *if the government stopped taxing interest on savings (which are always being diminished by inflation and bank charges if the person doesn’t have a mortgage with that bank),
    *if a loss on investment housing was a lien on that property carrying interest,
    *if young people could be encouraged to make regular savings with an explanation that would convey advantages – a good credit rating, a lower rate of interest on student loans, go into a prize draw, become a part deposit on a simple house matched by the government etc we might achieve something about saving in this country. All this talk about it and no do , I speet on it!

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.