- Date published:
7:00 am, May 27th, 2019 - 262 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 …
Us blocks Huawei from getting upgraded, Google complies.
Xi Jinping writes to participants of the China Big Data International Expo seeking global cooperation in the worldwide development of the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence.
Which way will EU recommend? There's no automatic preference for assisting US business. But theres no reaching Android for years.
AD. I hope that statement isn't you being a bit freaked out. 10 or 20 twenty years ago we could have treated China with such distance and disdain to strategically monitor China. But they are not a developing nation anymore. China's time has come. They have a billion people and a quarter of them are starving. It would be much better if a quarter of al Chinese was not starving. That we can influence. Pissing contests between super powers. I mean why bother, do something else.
"They have a billion people and a quarter of them are starving"
A link for that claim please.
I recommend instead "How China Escaped the Poverty Trap" by Yuen Yuen Ang. There's some nice graphics in it showing the several Chinese hierarchies over the centuries.
"Instead" – of backing up what you claim is the case now? No thanks. Stop making shit up.
enjoy your hostilities
Expecting good faith conversation is such a bore, I know.
On the plus side, this levels the playing field a bit. For months we've been dubious about Huawei because it has to do whatever the Chinese government tells it to. Now, we have an example of how US companies are likewise obliged to do whatever the US government tells them to. If Google's compliance with Trump's economic war on China helps people stop seeing US tech companies as being independent, honest brokers, that's a good thing.
" If Google's compliance with Trump's economic war on China helps people stop seeing US tech companies as being independent, honest brokers, that's a good thing."
That is a really good point, but unfortunately many people only see want they want to see, and not they are actually seeing. I have friends that have a loyalty to the Apple brand that is quite intense, I have taken to assuming that some of these big tech companies have taken on a sort of semi low level quasi religious role in lots of peoples lives.
These independent, honest brokers play foostie with totalitarian regimes, too.
It is true that Huawei helps the Chinese government surveil its own citizens, by helping build smart cities among other things.. But government studies, corporate documents, leaked official reports and public records reveal that China did not invent the paradigm of the smart city by itself. It did so with the help of a number of Western governments and major Silicon Valley companies, including IBM and Microsoft.
IBM’s Dance with Huawei
Karamay was just the first project in a bigger plan to connect cities across Xinjiang. In the first half of 2014, 5,000 4G mobile stations were installed across Xinjiang’s 16 main cities and 63 counties. By the end of that year, a total of 12,000 4G base stations would be built.
By 2016, as smart city infrastructure was expanded across Xinjiang, IBM was still operating in Karamay, and began introducing “cognitive IoT” (Internet of Things) according to the city’s local government website. IBM’s technology was built around the Watson IoT platform, an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can find patterns and relationships across vast amounts of different types of data.
How exactly the Watson platform was practically applied in Karamay is unclear. IBM declined to respond to questions for this article. But Karamay is home to many Uyghur “re-education” camps, whose inhabitants are often detained by police for wearing Muslim clothing or having long beards. These practices are automated by the city’s extensive surveillance networks — first established under IBM’s “public security” platform, they have evolved into Huawei’s “Safe City” program.
IF Huawei are forced to create another fork of linux and not use android then we would all benefit greatly.
bring it on I say
So back in the '80's and beyond, NZ comedy would get laughs from the ways of Maori – think Billy T James of course. And often at women too – see same episodes. Of course comedy took the piss out of most other demographics too, including the pompous old white englishman.
Today there is a great deal of comedy with a different focus, which has been in the media and on the tele. This new focus is taking laughs from the way of the whitey. And laughs at men. It is funny, like the old stuff was too. “Only in Aotearoa” for example.
So is it ok to take comedy from all demographics today? Maori and their ways? Whitey and their ways? Men and women and their mysterious ways? Asians, Scots, PI's?
Would Billy T James be accepted today in this environment?
You mean the natz, who are the NZ joke party (black humour almost).
Billy T would not be considered very funny today. Honestly go watch a video he's not very good compared to today's artists. But people will get all het up over what I just wrote despite the fact it is true.
Some of his jokes stick because they were very good, television probably forced him into lame territory with their voracious appetite for material.
Self deprecating humor has the moral high ground. Then punching up, then punching down.
Punching down (minorities, women etc) is largely frowned upon for good reason. Even if well written it is still cruel with the funny.
If you want to go dark and even cruel to find the laughs there's always animals to take the mickey out of. One of my favorite dark writers is a nasty redneck jerk, can't stand the man for even a minute, but he knows how to separate his real darkness from his stage projections and the jokes are often world class.
Anything. ANYTHING, is fair game. But! – is it funny? That's the real acid test. People punching down would only ever rise to the top today in Trumps America.
thanks wtb, good points all round and on the money..
self-deprecation, followed by punching up, followed by punching down…
"cruel with the funny" is most often where things go wrong I think, no matter the subject up or down..
I'm sure most people would consider Guy Williams to be absolutely the funniest comedian in New Zealand.
He tells the most amazing jokes about Don Brash. Quite amazing the are. I'll bet they have his partner in absolute stitches. She would of course appreciate his wit.
Don got used to that sort of crap, and a great deal worse from idiots on the left over the years.
I think the young lady who Williams associates with should learn from what Don says. "Brash also said people were "too precious" about what is threatening and didn't believe that tweet met such criteria."
Then she might stop whinging about what Seymour said, which couldn't possibly be construed as a threat
The left use milkshakes. The right use bullets.
That's the difference.
Seymour's comment was a dog-whistle that resulted in threats. He ought to have known better and his feigning innocence is unbecoming, as is your faux indignation and denial of comprehension, alwyn.
Actually the threat that triggered Golriz's increase security was made before Seymour uttered some words. "Menace to freedom" I believe. Dog whistle is an interesting interpretation. Perhaps you should settle down a bit. The great hate speech debate has been won. You should know when you are defeated.
You believe so? Nice for you. Seymour's comments were dangerously inflammatory. He lacks the needed discretion.
Don took it really well. Whereas, could you imagine the outcry if someone did it to Golriz Ghahraman? Hence, I applaud Sean Plunket for setting up this ambush in the hope the two (Ghahraman, Williams) will learn from it.
Ambush? They're a sneaky, underhand action, ambushes, aren't they?
You applaud Soper for sneaky, underhand behaviour?
Colour me surprised!
It was Sean Plunket. And yes, I do.
It was done (and taken by the way) in good spirit in the hope the two would learn from it.
Who cares what Guy Williams said in jest. Seymour has a responsibility to guard the expression of his opinions. He failed that responsibility.
You should be very wary about extremists controling what MPs can and can not say.
Parliamentary rules control what MPs can and cannot say. As well as the slander and libel laws. Guy Williams is not an extremist, he plies the trade of comic, doesn't he?
Exactly. He currently has the freedom to do that.
The concern is will people still have that freedom going forward?
Seymour, otoh, has a responsibility to mind what he says.
It doesn't diminish the concern.
This isn't exactly comedy, but has a comedic edge. Featured on TV3's The Hui; "Voice Artist" Antonio Te Maioha with his brilliant take on colonisation: [3min 48s]
Hee, that is good. I like the way he fingered the english crown as the true villain who nail their own kind just as hard. Not that much comedy value but ..
An oldie but a goodie. GISH is an outstanding current kiwi performer.
Another local (not from USA)
And a personal favorite, this man is amazing live, an absolute pleasure to have worked with.
He,s still fantastic i reckon an we so need him arround now !! We so need more political satire in nz . I was buyin some smokes in the foursquare today an in the qeue behind me a maori dude sayes man i really feel like a smoke but i been off for two years i had a couple the other day an my wife said you smell like cigarettes !i swear he did a billie giggle Anyway we both walked outside he to the truck he apparentely drove i said i suppose you not allowed to smoke in a truck anymore either ? an he replied thats right mate but it dont stop me an once again the billie t giggle an i thought mate im with you !!BILLY T was an ambassador . RIP billy
Thanks mate, I had two or three well needed belly laughs.
I've met this man but I can't exactly place it. Too many bars over several decades…
But I think we met relatively recently… it'll come to me.
Billy T was an equal opportunity piss taker. I found the satire about the Pakeha view of Maori rather good. Typical Maori humour. Along with his taking down of self important, white fellers, and felleses!
Capitalism will eat democracy — unless we speak up | Yanis Varoufakis
Have you wondered why politicians aren't what they used to be, why governments seem unable to solve real problems? Economist Yanis Varoufakis, the former Minister of Finance for Greece, says that it's because you can be in politics today but not be in power — because real power now belongs to those who control the economy. He believes that the mega-rich and corporations are cannibalizing the political sphere, causing financial crisis. In this talk, hear his dream for a world in which capital and labor no longer struggle against each other, "one that is simultaneously libertarian, Marxist and Keynesian."
My Point this has already happened since 1984 here in NZ
You can't implement policies if you can't afford to fund them. That is what Greece found out. It is why Syriza ditched Varoufakis because they didn't want to suffer the consequence of falling out of the Eurozone.
If you viewed the talk. Since 1984 Neoliberalism has diminished real democracy in favour of the market, business, private banks and the FIRE sector: Finance,Insurance and Real estate to such an extent that very large sectors of NZ society are simply not represented by government at all for example young couples can't afford to buy their own home now despite good money due to property speculators and immigration. Varoufakis talks of the twin peaks of democracy and business, the former hugely diminished by the latter now. The business world is not a democratic one. Also Globalism has greatly diminished the people's sovereignty. The TPPA for instance. Uncontrolled capitalism is inimical to democracy. A government that does not control the market is controlled by the market, and ceases to be democratic except in sham only. Hence Ardern no CGT in her term ever.
Take the E.U. for instance:
The E.U has the only constitution in the world committed to capitalism.It destroys any prospect of socialism anywhere in Europe. making capitalism a constitutional requirement of that set up.
What part of the E.U constitution is committed to capitalism?
The reason why NZ housing affordability is so appalling is because there is not enough land being released for building purposes and therefore not enough new builds.
Simply wrong statement, from a simply wooly thinker.
The problem with ideological hacks mate, you ignore anything which might make your ideology look stupid. Oh boy does the housing crisis make your ideology look stupid, extra bonus – it makes it look down right hopeless.
Ummm…. no it doesn't. Even the current Minister of Housing has cottoned on to the cause of the Housing crisis. Hence why he is ditching his idiotic Kiwibuild idea.
The spigot of government funded infrastructure projects including Kiwi build can not keep pace with immigration, gooie. Don't even try and deny it, your math just isn’t enormous enough.
Wow, Twitford is your defence, sad day Gossy.
The reason NZ housing affordability is so appalling is because the banks have unrestricted ability to make up money against it.
It is astounding how many people, governments, organisations discuss and seek solutions to the housing crisis whithout ever considering the role of debt creation in it
Stick to Venezuela Gos. I doubt your knowledge of Greece is any better but this way you only look stupid on one topic.
Consequences like avoiding austerity.
Avoiding the debt imposed by wealthy tax dodgers.
Avoiding paying for Germanies economic stimulus.
And many more.
Thanks for the TED talk link, johnm. Very good.
For those on the left who once hailed Syriza as the start of something significant in leftist politics have a look at how far the party has fallen in the years since they took over in Greece.
So it's a race between Greece, Spain and the U.K to see who can break the fiscal ball and chain that is the EU. Of course we do need updating on the prettier side of politics now and again.
RNZ "national" was pretty depressing listening this morning, crime, shootings, sick children, rotting teeth, working poor and a dose of Simon Bridges, all in 45 minutes. My ears are ringing and my head is spinning. So onto my hobby horse I get and ride out into never never land…..please someone in the halls of governance please…please reinstate a 21st century ministry of works. You won’t regret it.
Kat; if you have a moment, could you have a go at convincing someone (me) who doesn't listen to or watch "the news", why it would be a good idea for me to change my ways and join those who do?
fellow non listener or watcher of the news.
There is no reason to watch or listen of the news. Most of it you can see in the community around if you care to open your eyes. Rotting teeth…good grief who can afford dental treatment when it eats up a half to total of one week of wages….not the working poor (even at 17.20$ an hour).
Sick children, well no shoes, moldy homes, crappy food (which comes with the rotting teeth, once you have no teeth left the only thing you eat is soft bread, soft meet, soft everything) and and and.
Crime and shootings also go hand in hand with the poverty of the working and non working poor that leads to bad teeth that leads to bad health that leads to sick kids and and and and.
As for Mr. No Bridges, there is no reason why anyone would or should listen to him. The no mates party still has no issues it would like to tackle, no program to better the lifes of people in need, and the only things that margarine covered milk toast is concerned of is that he shallt not pay any taxes on the many many property he owns. Cause taxes are for poor people with no teeth, no good health, obesity (soft bread and soft drinks do that to the best of us) type 2 diabetes, and so on.
come to think of, maybe our current government could look at the dental health care crisis in our fair country and do something about it. Surely it would help drop our obesity rates – and the rates of illnesses that are coming with it -and save heeps of money in the future.
so yeah, save time and mind and heart and listen to the song of birds ….it brings joy to the heart and mind.
Non-listening to "the news" is enormously refreshing and settling, Sabine. From the non-participant's point of view, those still listening and watching are stressed by the habit, kept on tenter-hooks, worried and rattled by each successive instalment. I say this as a recent (well, a year ago or thereabouts) habitual listener, someone who turned on the radio on the hour, every hour, watched the television news, thrilled to the latest iteration, the latest outrage, disaster, political theatrics, environmental catastrophe. No longer. There's work to be done. Filling one's head with material provided by "the news people" works against anything useful you might be involved in, including personal development, in my opinion.
I only allow myself a little bit at a time. It's like watching a train wreck and, in full view of the camera, you can see a brake lever.
Community is being replaced with social media. Less media and more socialising recommended for everyone.
Plant the garden, meet the neighbors, help your local organisations.
The news has nothing new. Just concentrated BS.
I'm serving at the counter of our local environment centre right now, WTB, so am with you on your recommendations
Robert, Morning Retort has always been and interesting daily commentary and I quite like the current duo, the Rosie soft Irish female accent and the slightly shouty new Kiwi bloke, whose name reminds me of a bench top. I feel its my duty to keep up with the play, to an extent. I can't just bury my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. We only listen for about an hour in the morning, I used to check the fish wrap most days but don't any more. I could take morphine and die.
No worries, Kat; I wasn't being negatively critical of you. Despite my rejection of live news listening, I still absorb some when I come here to TS
Perhaps I should be recommending restraint and discretion when it comes to news-watching. Or perhaps it's none of my business.
I know you were not being critical of me Robert, and your question did make me think do we really need this bleak news in our lives at such an early hour of the day, or any other time. But then it is reality, sad or joyful, and the writer in me makes me want to pen something about it. The TS is a very interesting forum, a controlled freedom online that has its moments but seems to self moderate, eventually. My view is though most commentators here may be only venting a bit of frustration on one topic or another it often produces positive and informative reaction.
I often ponder what it would be like if all contributors here on the TS were the parliament executive running the country. Ha!
My mum refers to the TV news unfailingly as 'The doom and gloom show'.
She loves very episode.
Rotting teeth – "In breaking news, we're just receiving reports that poverty affects dental health!" Paddy Gower was preaching last night on Newshub that the inability of the poor to access dental health care is an urgent "crisis" that this government is doing nothing to address, for all the world as though it were a recent development of the last few years. Of course, if the government were to actually commit to doing something about it, Paddy would be on Newshub braying about how much all this is going to cost from "your taxes." When it comes to the news, perhaps ignorance really is bliss.
Since I stopped reading or watching the "news" a few years back, I've noticed when I hear of some latest drama that I've heard it before, how often the news gets recycled, and how cynically it's used to garner outrage.
I've noticed the same thing, I feel the love; I first noticed the effect with regard rugby, having not watched any for years, I was amazed, when I did overhear part of a game that was a carbon-copy of games I'd heard long ago; nothing novel there. Therefore, stultifying
Gower is under the delusion that he could somehow match the intellect and wit of the Canadians if he had a second go. I think he should be pitied.
Ah yes, "the Canadians."
Those Canadians made Paddy cry. Big bullies!
Here's some news on a couple doing really good work, Kat.
(I watched this earlier and wondered how many Expert Advisory Groups the Drs. Bagshaws had been asked to sit on.)
Forget about having them on Expert Advisory Groups, we need can do people like this couple running the country.
Don't need to advise if you have enough access to resources to do it yourself. Shows up all those who don't.
"a dose of Simon Bridges"
Keeps you regular.
Or, creates a desire to purge.
Bridges is into fear factor mode today.
That'll work for those who are as dumb. desperate and short-sighted as he is.
A bit weird from Simon today Peter. Dogged barking. Deny facts. Misquote. Hard to take anything he says seriously.Long may he stay. Amen
Anybody called him a liar yet?
I found it very hard to hear what he was saying.
Not because of Simon but the harridan interviewer. She wouldn't him finish anything he was saying and simply shouted over him.
I'll bet she is better behaved if she does the Ardern interview tomorrow. Then it will be "Oh you are so wonderful, Prime Minister"
If that "harridan interviewer" EVER utters the words "Oh you are so wonderful, Prime Minister" while interviewing PM Ardern, then I'll donate NZ$200 to a charity of Alwyn's choice.
I predict my money is safe, unlike blackguard Alwyn's prediction.
I didn't actually claim she would say precisely those words. I merely gave the tone of the interview.
Now I suggest you go back to sleep. You clearly need it.
‘Oh you are so wonderful, Alwyn.’ /sarc
Apologies Alwyn, in my drowsy state I mis-interpreted your use of quotation marks – please consider qualifying your statements if you wish to communicate clearly.
The perils of written communication I guess – thanks for the clarification.
An interesting quote by Anna Rawhiti-Connell in Newsroom today.
"‘In our society, there seems to be a general rule that, the more obviously one’s work benefits other people, the less one is likely to be paid for it…."
Fonterra's CEO with his enormous salary must surely believe his work benefits people enormously!
I thought kiwi build was supposed to drive rents down, not increase them?
nothing much to do with Kiwi build but all to do with the Greed of NZ landlords.
Also the many houses especially on hte country side empty for Air BnB, or BednBreakfast and that stuff. Cause landlords in NZ like themselves a good profit and gosh people will pay anything to not be on the road.
So you might start blaming the Kiwi Landlords that look upon their fellow Kiwis and tenants as if they were a dairy cow. You know just to be fair and balanced.
Yes, all landlords are evil. that is the reason rents are increasing.
It wouldn't be the blanket effect of the macro-economic policies that this government has enacted are having some impact as well.
Probably one of your worse comments sabine. i'd expect that lack of perceptiveness from clean green, but not you. His comment below is atrocious, but helps to explain why landlords are increasing rent all around the country. Thanks CG, for once again blundering into making my own point for me.
no one said that 'all landlords' are evil. In fact i said no such thing. You made it up.
Secondly, yes Landlords in NZ hold the power when it comes to rent increases. They have few restrictions on how many times they can raise rent per year (ever 6 month so twice a year if you like) and by about 10% right?
I can understand that sometimes rents need to increase – i have been a tenant in NZ for 20 years and now have owned my own dwelling for 2.5 years.
But, again, one can not only always put blame on the government. They do what they do, sometimes better sometimes worse. But fact is we are in an environment where the supply is kept tight, and thus the power lies solely with Landlords. And maybe just maybe they want to ask themselves is this rent increase needed? Will my tenants cope? if not will i find an equally good tenant or do i just not give a fuck, cause at the end if i can't rent my hovel i can take the loss and offset it against income and thus reduce my tax burden.
That is all i said. Btw, i am currently fixing the house, insulation to go in in 6 weeks, bathroom all fixed up and ready, plumbing upgraded, and as i was assured by the insulation dude i will comply with the warm housing standard as legislated. ( i live in this house currently 🙂 ) Then i too will be a landlord, and my partner and I have decided that this property will go to a young kiwi family for an affordable rent and hopefully these guys will live there for a long time to come. Cause this shit needs to stop. I could put this house up for Air BnB and in summer make a shit load of money, but then where would that family live? We all make the communities we live in.
We need to house our own, we need to provide the opportunities that we had to the next generation and one of them is a tidy, clean, warm house to raise a family in.
And i still would like to see a CGT so that this country can afford a few more of the good things.
So yes, landlords in NZ need to look at their own action, because one thing is for sure, you can’t legislate greed, and there is a lot of that in the Market.
"….but all to do with the Greed of NZ landlords"
keep dancing on the head of a pin about what you meant to say and what came across to the reader of your comment.
Who is blaming the government entirely? Landlords as the business owners set price according to market demand. so they aren't exactly helpless in this.
Shifting the blame entirely onto the individual in the face of macro economic policies that on one hand were designed to drive up a landlords costs, while being balanced by a policy designed to drive rental demand down by moving more renters into home ownership, is so disingenuous as to be hilarious.
In the face of the complete and utter of failure that is kiwibuild in providing an alternative to renting, how can the increase in rents solely be the responsibility of the landlord? should they lose money because of the ineptitude of the government at implementing policy that works? In the eyes of their supporters of course.
But in the eyes of anyone in business, it's a dangerous expectation
Not all landlords are greedy. I had some good ones and some really bad ones, and i took one of them 'acting landlord' to the tenancy tribunal and i won the case.
If landlords set prices based on supply and demand, that no one should ever whinge that prices are too high, and no one should whinge that government is not doing enough, cause the free market will fix it. Right?
I am not shifting the blame to the individual, i am shifting the blame to those that very successfully abuse the system and with it create a system that allows under the guise of free market to keep houses empty in order to make much money on currently unregulated businesses. And i for one would like to see the same regulations put on Air BnB then is on motels, hotels, and bed n breakfast. Yet so far crickets and i don't see your whinge about that on the standard.
You don't want to talk abut homelessness, or solutions to it, or landlords taking responsabilities for their action, you just want to whinge about the current government not doing enough, while in fact the mess that we deal now with was created under the NO mates Party, under John "the ponytail puller' Key, Paula Benefit, Simone NO Bridges, Nick 'crown land is suitable for building houses' Smith and the likes.
I have a business, I have a rental, I am a property owner, and I am all for CGT, i am all for regulations on how many times you can raise rent for a rental – only if you actually do something to the dwelling to increase its value not only for the bankbooks but for he propspective tenants, i am all for the abolishion of 6 month rental contracts cause that is just bullshit, takes away a lot of productivty – moving is a hassle and expensive, i am all for long term stable rentals so that in our communities we again know our neighborgs, young ones can again join the local volunteer fire brigade / st. johns or the likes, and we know our elders.
I don't call that a dangerous expectation, i call that a good thing.
And last but least, under the current goverment 300 houses will have been build by June 1, that while it falls short of the goal are 300 houses that were build.
Consider this with the last National Party Housing Spokesperson that oculd not even give a number as nothing was done under their reign other then let the market reign supreme and let kiwis and their children live in busses and in ditches cause Profit.
and a large part of our problem is that quite a few Landlords got greedy and have no issue abusing their fellow kiwis for gain, knowing that no one actually likes living in a ditch.
More legislation affecting accommodation? AirBnB is a natural choice when faced with the prospect of fixed prices on increasing costs in the long term. Short Term, highly variable pricing with the freedom to get in and out as willing. Flexibility commands a premium. Just saddling more costs onto those renting out airbnbs will not help moteliers provide a better service at a more reasonable price? in the face of increasing competition, but the bulk of them make no effort to welcome their customers beyond milk in a plastic pottle?
300 houses? Can you please give me some evidence this government has achieved that? last I saw it was 82.
Homelessness as an issue seems largely to have disappeared under this government. Whether that's actual or reported by media I don't know. But kudos to them either way.
A large part of our problem could probably be dated back to the original WFF enabling the middle class to look to cement further property gains off set by government income, if you are only going to ascribe a large part of this to greedy landlords.
But more likely, a large of the problem can be ascribed, as originally posited to this government not having the wherewithal to actually see the impact their macro-housing market policies would impact the individual consumer. lots of aspiration, little perception of the impact of that.
"Yes, all landlords are evil."
Nope – landlords are like the rest of us, a mixture. Nothing to do with individuals and everything to do with structures. The issue is that landlord-tenant is an unequal power relationship – and should be regarded as illegitimate for that reason.
"nothing much to do with Kiwi build but all to do with the Greed of NZ landlords."
More like the stupidity of this government, who have imposed, or are planning to impose, significant increased costs on landlords. What doe the government expect landlords to do? If costs go up, so does the rent. If they had half a brain they would have figured that out.
Your word on this matter means fuck all because you have a conflict of interest.
Because I'm a landlord? I should be delighted. I can, if I wish, put rents up more than my costs. Because as well as pushing up costs, they are also not building homes my tenants could afford to buy. I'm getting a win-win from this government.
I don't assume risk. Why would any land lord risk an easy 20k for some thump change. If you can rent it what ever it is idk $400p/w why would you risk your an established tenant for some chump change? That's just not the tahi muh cuzzy.
"If you can rent it what ever it is idk $400p/w why would you risk your an established tenant for some chump change? "
It isn't chump change. And established tenants will pay the extra because rents are going up, and everyone knows it.
I'm recovering additional costs. Yeah I guess you would figure that as a loss.
Bullshit detector: recovering additional costs
translation: $10 per week rent increase
wiiiiiiining 😂😂 😂
I didn't say 'winning'. I said you were wrong to say it is losing.
Could ask myself the same thing – why don't I chase the marginal benefits of $10 rental increases? Answer: pretty damn obvious in this market; lay ups everywhere. My god seriously it's not hard to outperform rental returns if you know what you are doing.
No-ones chasing 'marginal benefits'. The long term investment benefits of rental property are well known. And there are very few other investments that even come close in terms of return and risk profile.
That's what all the taxi drivers say
None I've ever spoken to.
Then you've got nothing to worry about
Kiwi Build is a failure and not helping, but I think the reason for the rent increases is the increased compliance costs that have been imposed. Often a rental can now end up having better insulation etc. than the landlord's house.
Rents are going up because:
1. Costs are rising (as you say).
2. The government has signaled more measures that will disadvantage landlords, so the risk premium increases.
3. The government has failed to address the core issues driving house prices – supply of land and the consent process.
4. The government is too focused on providing affordable houses for people to purchase, which is a folly, and at which they are failing.
Can you drive down your own costs for your sevices to TS while every other cost is still rising daily?
The idea seemed like a good one… After posting a video of a young recruit talking to the camera about how service allows him to better himself “as a man and a warrior”, the US Army [@USArmy] tweeted, “How has serving impacted you?”
As of this writing, the post has over 5,300 responses. Most of them are heartbreaking.
“My daughter was raped while in the army,” said one responder. “They took her to the hospital where an all male staff tried to convince her to give the guy a break because it would ruin his life. She persisted. Wouldn’t back down. Did a tour in Iraq. Now suffers from PTSD.”
“I’ve had the same nightmare almost every night for the past 15 years,” said another.
Tweet after tweet after tweet, people used the opportunity that the Army had inadvertently given them to describe how they or their loved one had been chewed up and spit out by a war machine that never cared about them. This article exists solely to document a few of the things that have been posted in that space, partly to help spread public awareness and partly in case the thread gets deleted in the interests of “national security.
Holy shit that link makes depressing reading, that fucking war mongering areshole John Bolton should be made to read out five of those statement before every single interview he does.
Where did this 'warrior' bullshit come from?
We need 'dogedness' in our leaders here also but sadly this is lacking while……Right now, oil giant OMV has an application in front of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a consent to drill up to 10 wells in the Great South Basin off the Otago coast.
Sign here tofday, —– as it is ytthe last day for petitions for stoping oil drilling off the otago coast. https://act.greenpeace.org/page/43084/petition/1?utm_medium=email&utm_source=email-list&utm_campaign=climate&utm_content=Climate:+OMV+marine+discharge+submissions+B+image+16:51:54&ea.url.id=3099338&forwarded=true
We are calling on the EPA to reject the application, and we urgently need your backup. We've written a detailed submission. You can add your name to ours in two quick clicks, or if you have time, you can write your own – but the deadline is 5pm today!
This is the oil company on the list of 100 corporations that have caused 70% of the world’s climate emissions. They’re also one of a handful of companies that have controversially chosen to drill for oil in the Arctic. Not only are they expanding their dirty oil campaign to the pristine waters off the Dunedin coastline, but they’re requesting permission to dump toxic stuff there.
I submitted to the EPA on this issue. Here's what I sent them:
Accepting that, “OMV GSB’s marine discharge consent application is limited to the discharge of harmful substances from the hazardous and non-hazardous deck drains aboard. I know that this issue “de minimis” will not tax the panel, nor will it threaten the proposal by OMV to disturb the sea bed off-shore of Otago and Southland and release from secure sequestration, the oil and gas resource that lies there. However, this being the only opportunity for members of the general public to express their thoughts and feelings about that proposal, I am bound to say that the notion that it’s safe to release oil and gas from where it’s safely sequestered beneath the sea bed, into an atmosphere that’s already overloaded with greenhouse gases, is insane.
That’s not to say the people involved are insane; they are like most of us; captured by the insane notion and unable to say no to the industry that’s promoting it. We, the public, can though, say no; the proposal is insane, unsafe and threatens our shared future. As commissioners considering the application through the exceptionally narrow window of “harmful substances from the deck drains” you are bound to keep within that prescription, but as humans, as decision makers, good decision makers, you must feel uncomfortable at being asked to progress a proposal that essentially threatens the lives of your community; your friends, your children and your grandchildren, if you are so fortunate, as I am, to have some.
The minute quantities of toxic materials that may be washed from the decks of an oil rig squatting in the Great South Basin is the very least of our concerns. The release of billions of tonnes of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, through extracting, refining and on-selling to customers who will burn it in their factories and vehicles, is truly a crime against humanity and if the industry that is proposing such a crime had a heart and a soul, it would feel deeply ashamed and would cease its life-destroying behaviour, but it does not, it is a body corporate and lacks those essential human characteristics. You though, commissioners; parents, grandparents, do have hearts, souls and consciences. Please make good decisions when faced with the demands of an industry that can’t.
Thats telling 'em Robert. Will they listen and act? Not optimistic about that but your comments will be on record to give 'em nightmares – perhaps.
Will they act, ianmac? I don't see how they could; the issue covered by the hearing is very, very restricted and they must contain their decision to that. As to nightmares, I don't wish that on the panel-members, I hope for inspiration, the lifting of the veil, epiphanies all round. It's the only way, imo.
Btw, cleangreen, the Great South Basin extends well below the coastline of Southland as well, though OMV are taking great care to obscure that fact from Southlanders.
Why am I not surpised with this?
"Officials have told ministers NZ is not on track to meet is current commitments under the Paris Agreement."
Current 2030 emissions targets unlikely to be met Energy and Environment NZ Sunday, 26 May 2019, 7:00 pm Article: NZ Energy and Environment Business Week Current 2030 emissions targets unlikely to be met First published in Energy and Environment on May 16, 2019.
Officials have told ministers NZ is not on track to meet is current commitments under the Paris Agreement. NZ has agreed under the Paris Agreement to a Nationally Determined Contribution of reducing emissions by 30% below 2005 levels (equivalent to 11% of 1990 levels) by 2030.
In the climate change legislation Regulatory Impact Assessment, Officials said: “NZ cannot rely on afforestation to deliver the necessary offsets over the next twelve years to meet its NDC, or on major innovations being market-ready and adopted (such as a methane vaccine or widespread adoption of electric or autonomous vehicles). “Based on what we know from high-level indications of abatement potential, NZ’s transition pathway is highly likely to start more gradually – as opposed to continuing in a straight line from now to 2050 – and could accelerate in later decades if innovations come to fruition, likely bolstered if there are strong domestic signals that support transition.”
Given the level of uncertainty on a cost-effective pathway for domestic emissions, the RIA said ministers might have to consider driving domestic abatement based on feasible opportunities available and the need to review the target based on evolving information on technological and other developments. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1905/S00132/current-2030-emissions-targets-unlikely-to-be-met.htm
Russia gate, to those who still believe in it, let me say you are not only stupid, your dangerous.
Dont really see those lines and lines of sentences filled with Putin bot, Putin apologists and other rhetoric designed from the bottom up to signal how virtuous one is. It was total gibberish. How rediculous.
Sam i wonder if you could consider removing that thumb nail impression of your face from beside your name ? i keep getting this recurring nightmare every time i see it which is ..er often that the image fetus like head is attached to a glutiness amophous mass swimming arround in some hitherto unknown jelly from an alien source perhaps ? ..just saying
Thats what I was going for
Well you would say that wouldn't you.
Yeah I would, not a big fan of war, and in particular nuclear war. As this muppetry has once again made it a real possibility.
But keep believing the hate Gabby, keep believing the lies, one day unicorns will make the world a better place.
Anarchist unicorns to the system changing rescue lol
Was going offer an off the hand quib the al1en, but then I remembered you struggle with idioms, and basic nuances within the english language.
And I always thought it was idiots I had issues with
The mirror must hurt.
The Child Poverty Action Group is pleased the government intends to lower public transport costs for low-income households, but says the announcement doesn't go far enough.
That is a great start. How else will we get all the beat up dirty burning old shitboxes off the road if we can't provide an alternative.
I reckon public transport should be free. Compensation can be via reduced carbon, reduced road maintenance and reduced congestion (faster travel times increase productivity).
It's time for foresight.
Personally, it seems like a slow start and sometime before full implementation, if at all. They haven't even nailed down how it will be funded.
Personally, it seems like a slow start and sometime before full implementation, if at all. They haven't even nailed down how it will be funded. "
In full-mope mode this morning, Chairman!
Far from it, Robert. Just telling it how it is. And seeing as you directed your reply towards me and not my assertions, one can only assume you have no rebuttal. Suggesting (as much as you would hate to admit it) you know I'm correct.
I'm not interested in the substance of your claims, Chair, more the tenor of your comments; you sound mopey, negative, Eeyore-like. Your reply, "Far from it" is entirely unconvincing; I know the sound of dispiriting-greyness when I hear it and believe I know your purpose here.
Did you really expect anything different? Though I'd lay off the cuddly cartoon imagery as it normalises what is a very disingenuous game being played out here, unless of course you use the far more appropriate Shrek.
No game being played here. Just another lefty holding this useless Labour party to account.
In my opinion, and so it would seem quite a few others on here, you're about as genuine left as my right foot.
I find your claim to be lacking credibility.
Come, come old chap.
They are doing all that this Coalition Government does about anything.
They are going to have a conversation and (perhaps) decide if anything is possible. What more did you expect?
Yes. Makes one wonder what they've been doing all this time in opposition. No pre-planning evidently. Unlike Roger Douglas who had a plan (not that I supported it) and hit the ground running.
Ah yes "There's got to be a Better Way" from 1980. And other works of course.
Pity that the current lot hadn't spent a bit of their 9 years in Opposition doing a bit of thinking. Twyford for a start. Instead they just fluffed around counting the number of Chinese sounding names in those buying houses and such like.
Our current Prime Minister didn't even do that much I'm afraid.
"Compensation can be via reduced carbon"
.. requires proper carbon taxes. Let's have em.
Would the tax be like GST put on top of all goods and services? Moreover, will it have exemptions for the poor to ensure a just transition?
I'd recommend replacing parts or all of the payrol tax with a carbon tax so consumers are protected from cost shifting.
Are you talking employers contributions or are you suggesting taxing all employees?
What about company tax?
What will prevent employers incorporating the tax burden into the cost of their goods and services, thus still passing the cost of the new tax on?
I'm talking about pricing carbon and taxing it, similar to floating the kiwi dollar on the foreign exchange. So every time a commercial investor or a retail investor ie persons who are regulated to perform controlled functions. Every time an investor withdraws, is withdraw even the correct word? So every time some one increases their carbon footprint, you take that increase in productivity and tax it. Once there's a price on carbon then entrepreneurs will be able to borrow against it. It would be the new petrodollar only this one is designed for democratization of energy. A monopoly like energy utility the government could easily borrow a 10x NZs GDP or $2trillion for energy policy.
Edited after 4 minutes.
Take a look at the Canadian model it seems to be working. Basically, the high carbon emitters pay and this goes as compensation to low carbon emitters.
I do not think having carbon as an international commodity is a good idea, but at a national level each country can account for what's actually going on, who gets what, and why.
When you reduce traffic on the road you will aid the economy simply through reducing trip times for goods and service people. When you add to that the reduction in road maintenance, and the reduction in carbon which must now be accounted for re: save the world…
Then there's the reduction in air pollution, noise pollution…
I'd hope somewhere somehow somebody is thinking about all this in the big picture: you know, like in a 'super city'. The accounting will stack up.
But the transport's design must make sense to the people who actually use it, not some vacuous office jockey.
I'm not familiar with the Canadian model. But going off your comments are you suggesting for example that a user of an old high carbon emitting vehicle would be paying carbon tax to compensate the owner of a low emitting vehicle? Basically, the poor subsidizing the well to do?
No I was not suggesting hitting old car owners, but I was suggesting folks who own such cars (old shitboxes) need alternatives e.g. free public transport. I was suggesting pretty much the opposite of what you suggest I suggested.
I suggest you are misleading.
I also mentioned that said public transport would need to be useful e.g. Gabby's comment. Access, useful hours and schedule/stops.
I asked you a simple question in regards to high emitters compensating low emitters. Therefore, there was no need for you to suggest I was being misleading.
So if I was incorrect in the example used in my question, please explain what you mean by this (your quote above).
"Carbon taxes put a direct price on emissions. Generally, this means that greenhouse gas emitters—usually fuel producers and distributors—pay a designated amount per each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted from burning carbon-based fuels. In order to motivate emitters to decrease emissions, the price usually goes up slowly over time so households and industries have time to adjust and adopt less carbon-heavy practices."
That's the general idea. Those reliant on private petrol transport will indeed be hit, and it of course hurts the poor the most – as I imagine most everything financial hurts the poor the most it's a tired old line trotted out every few months or so to whatever issue might add expense. I also imagine when golf club fees rise the poor wont give a shit.
So the trick is to identify those hit hardest and help them. Public transport is one way to kill many birds with one stone. Assistance for transitioning businesses is where I'd like to see carbon taxes going. EV, solar subsidies, public transport but also private fleets might need help. Import duties waived, whatever we can do to help smooth a transition.
Seems you were.
I don't think those buying EVs are the hardest hit requiring subsidies. Thus, seems more work is required on this plan.
Yeah I saw I got that wrong, owned it… My point was about free transport making it easier (supposedly) for the shit box owners.
With climate change we're not talking about one class or sector of society involved and so private, public and commercial fleets all have to adapt too. Fighting climate change: getting the masses into mass transit would be a gut punch. It won't finish the job but it's a good opening salvo. Helping business/government fleets transition requiring help should be part of a follow through jab. We're all in this!
It's investment that lends resilience by reducing reliance on the stuff that's killing us.
A rehab program for petrol heads.
Tough if your access to public transport is nil.
Indeed. And there are a few in that position.
6 new Guest Commentators announced for The People’s Budget
Toddler waits five months for treatment for rotten teeth, abscesses and we are told the long wait time is not unusual with long waiting lists for children across much of the country being the norm.
And to think, when it comes down to peoples well being and fiscal responsibility, the Government thinks they have the balance about right.
And this is coming from a Labour led Government.
With all the stories of people suffering and doing it hard in this country, do you think this Labour led Government has the balance about right?
Poor old David Clark. He has been bitten on the bum by his mates in the CTU. The claim that he will need to get another $3.2 billion for the Health vote in Thursdays Budget to get back to the high standards set in the first Key Government Budget in the 2009/2010 year.
"However, the new report said for health to regain the spending power it had in 2009-10, it would need a $3.2b increase in the 2019 Budget to about $20.2b."
If they are willing to settle for the level of last years budget they will only need about $1.3 billion of course. I wonder how much Grant is willing to provide on Thursday for "Dr" Clark's little fifedom? I can't imagine it will be enough to return to the record levels reached by National in the CTU's preferred base year. That demonstrates of course the shambles in the Health system today where all the DHBs are spending more than was in their budgets and elective surgery numbers are falling.
No wonder Economists like Cameron Bagrie are now agreeing with Stephen Joyce and that there was an enormous hole in Labour's numbers because they made no provision for the future in their pre-2017 financial estimates. Grant is clearly desperate to stuff up the gap by pushing for further allowed borrowing of around $15 billion dollars.
I'm sure David Clark will be thrilled to know you feel such genuine sympathy for his current predicament and nobly avoided the usual compulsion to come across as a smug tit. Well done, mate. Keep it up.
When are all the other economists going to come out of the wood work and say "we were wrong….there is a hole"
Well, they weren't wrong, so that doesn't seem very likely. However, given that Labour gave the health system an increase last year and yet it still apparently needs another $3.2 bil extra just to be funded at the same level it was 10 years ago, when are all the economists going to come out of the woodwork and say "National left a way bigger fucking mess than any of us imagined at the time"?
Obviously Cameron Bagrie is wrong then. It doesn't fill you with much confidence when the Finance minister doesn't seem to have any idea what 1% of GDP is though.
The statement that health needs another $3.2 billion to be the same in real terms 2010 can't possibly be correct. Health has had above inflation (and above GDP growth) levels of increase over every one of the last ten years. $3.2 billion would be nearly another 20% on top of current expenditure.
It is much more likely that there is increased demand for new procedures and new drugs, plus probably the effects of an ageing population. Health already takes around 10% of GDP. $3.2 billion extra would instantly lift it to 12% of GDP.
We do spend a little less as a percentage of GDP than a number of other OECD nations, though most of these other nations have a higher age population profile than New Zealand.
It is of course relatively easy to add up a whole lot of demands for spending. The recent welfare taskforce would add another $5 billion, health another $3 billion, education another $2 billion, environment another $1 billion (doubling), R & D another $1 billion (doubling), the justice sector (police, corrections, etc), another $1 billion, transport, another $2 billion. That is $15 billion, which would be an increase of nearly 20% in government spending.
All of the above would be current expenditure, not capital projects. If you want another $15 billion capital expenditure in the next three years (above what is already planned), that is extra interest and capital charge, about $2 billion more per year.
It would mean govt would be around 35 to 36% of GDP compared to the current 30%. Big tax increases would be needed, not just on high income earners, but right across the middle. Probably the standard tax rate has to go to 20% instead of the current 17.5%. The current top rate of 33% for incomes above $70,000 would need to go to 36% with a new rate of 40% for income above $100,000.
The government could do all or some of the above. But would they get re-elected?
The statement that health needs another $3.2 billion to be the same in real terms 2010 can't possibly be correct. Health has had above inflation (and above GDP growth) levels of increase over every one of the last ten years. $3.2 billion would be nearly another 20% on top of current expenditure.
Wayne. I understand this is difficult for you.
But luckily for you for some years now the Combined Trade Unions has produced pre and post Budget assessments/commentaries. I have found these very useful to create an accurate picture of the health sector.
Here's their work for 2017.
and various plain English publications from the same team which helps explain why simply waffling on about GDP doesn't cut it.
You're more than welcome.
I have read all the CTU material on this issue in the past. Not convinced then, not convinced now. Basically it is special pleading.
While there its a case for more money on the basis of an ageing population, the difference is not as great as the CTU says. The aged population hasn't increased 20% in the last decade.
But in any event I was making a broader point. That it is easy to find ways to spend more money on public services. I just went for the most obvious. And for instance assumed extra money for social housing was included in the extra $5 billion.
Will Labour go for these sort of increases, increasing public spending by the amounts I have indicated, for a total increase of 20%? No, they won't.
I reckon they might be up for a 5 to 7% increase, basically a term 2 commitment. That way they would not need to increase taxes, except for a 40% rate for incomes above $150,000. Fiscal drag automatically pushes up the amount of tax.
The price actually increases despite a glut of supply because people don't shop around for open heart surgery. The cost of healthcare is very disconnected and opaque to the end user, and people generally just go to the nearest hospital or whatever their doctor wants. Nobody at any step of this process has any incentive to try and save money. The patient isn't paying the full cost of surgery (and couldn't afford to in many cases regardless) so the patient doesn't care. The hospitals get paid per procedure, and they just pass the cost onto the government / insurance company, so they don't care. And the insurance companies/government mostly get paid by employers/taxes rather than individuals, so they don't really care either.
Somethings are slowly starting to change. Insurance companies and health providers are being slowly pressured to reduce premiums / costs, which means they've been pressuring the hospitals to reduce costs. One method of doing this is a new system of paying providers per problem fixed rather than paying per procedure performed. This means hospitals and doctors have incentive to actually fix the problem at a reasonable cost rather than order 200 different tests to pad their their budgets.
"The aged population hasn't increased 20% in the last decade."
– Wayne @184.108.40.206.1.1
Wayne, can you back your reckon with evidence?
Haven't got data for a full decade, but in:
June 2012 – 611,400 NZers were 65+
June 2017 – 723,000 NZers were 65+
That's an 18% increase over 5 years, so a 20% increase over 10 years would be conservative, no?
Fair cop about the growth of those over 65.
However, the health budget increased from $12.6 billion in 2009/10 to $16.5 billion in 2018. An increase of 32%. OK, so inflation as about 8%, so a real increase of 24%. Which is higher than the population growth, even among the elderly.
Wayne: well, that's reassuring. No big hole in Labour's budgeting, just the usual ever-increasing demand for additional services.
The government could do all or some of the above. But would they get re-elected?
Aye, there's the rub. Voters have no end of additional services they'd like the government to provide, or infrastructure they'd like it to build, but they'll punish a government for raising taxes or borrowing money to achieve those things.
I had a look at this exercise of the CTU when they first did it and, although I didn't check all the numbers in detail the methodology made sense.
However then, when they were attacking National, they picked as their starting year and what they chose to treat as "normal" 2009/2010. That was the first year of the National Government and had a very high, quite abnormal in fact, expenditure on health. Increases from then simply went on in a similar way as they had under Labour and the jump in 2009/2010 was merely a one off amount to fix particular problems that existed.
It made their calculations misleading compared to the more reasonable starting point of the 2008/2009 year which was the final year of the Labour Government.
I commented quite extensively on this, and on this blog in fact, back when the work was first produced but other people reading this blog refused to accept the reasoning. Why would they when they could use it to bash National.
Now of course it has to be wrong because otherwise they have to abuse the Labour Party and that can't possibly be fair, can it?
And no Psycho. It doesn't prove that National left it in a mess. In fact the fact that Labour hasn't raised the Health budget by an unusual amount merely shows that they now accept that National had done their work rather well.
Why do you use quotation marks when referring to Dr Clark, Alwyn? If you're implying he's faked his CV, you're wrong. Or, if you're just putting them there because ignorant people think someone with a PhD isn't a "real" doctor, please be ashamed of your ignorance and do something to educate yourself.
I know he has got a PhD degree. It is in Religious Studies I believe. Normally I am perfectly happy to refer to people with that academic qualification with the title Doctor. I certainly have no feeling of shame about it.
Thus it is perfectly acceptable to have Dr Cullen, Dr Smith, both Nick and Lockwood, Dr Mapp, Dr Palmer Dr Norman and Dr Woods.
However the one exception I make is for someone who is the Health Minister. It tends to imply that they are qualified in medicine and have particular qualifications for the role. That I regard as misleading and I think they should avoid calling themselves by the title.
Clark is not a medical Doctor and shouldn't use the title. You don't have to agree with me but that is my opinion. Should a disaster happen and I was to end up as Minister of Health I certainly wouldn't claim to be "Dr" alwyn.
Them that pays the piper calls the tune…
I noticed the spelling mistake when it was too late to edit it, unfortunately. I was hoping nobody would spot it. You have a very sharp eye, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, considering your comment, perhaps it is appropriate.
Pharmac tells Stella…"'You're not worth it'.
We should all hang our heads in shame.
Disgusting. Give this young person the drug and help her – this money approach is intolerable.
After further reading from a thread a day or two back, it seems that the main issue with pharmac is a spending cap.
Spending a million bucks on one person based on one trial just isn't as positive as spending that million dollars on a thousand people who receive more effective meds for a better funtion of life quality over time. But if the cap were larger or non-existent, both meds receive funding.
Be nice if it was an either or situation but I suspect it is and neither neither issue.
Who you gunna kill to do that mardymardy?
the MP's booze and travel budget
Pharmac's doing its job, which is to prioritise the government's spending on pharmaceuticals based on greatest good for the greatest number, within the budget it's given. So, yeah, if Pharmac had a budget of Infinity Dollars, this refusal to fund an expensive medication just because it hasn't yet been proven to work in clinical trials would be a shameful, terrible act that should get its leaders fired. But it doesn't have a budget of Infinity Dollars so the questions of how much stuff costs and what's the evidence for it working as advertised are very relevant.
The alternative to the way we're running Pharmac now, as envisaged by activists for herceptin, spinraza or whatever this month's miracle cure is, is for the people with the most popular sob story to get the most funding. Be careful what you wish for.
That herceptin thing still pisses me off.
It's only the "acceptable" people who get to pull that shit, especially to get the media onside.
I think you'll find that Pharmac is more interested in the $$$ rather than the efficacy. I won't even guess at where the human factor sits….but as one of the people living with SMA says in the article…
Ms Tolich herself has SMA and will not be eligible to access Spinraza if it gets funded here because it will only be available for those under 18.
But she said the fight was not about her, it's for the children.
"For families, it's just desperation out there because every day it's potentially another [person who suffers from a] motor neuron [disease] lost, and it's heartbreaking.
"We just can't live like that."
Ms Tolich said she believed Pharmac delays funding for certain medications to try and get cheaper prices from suppliers.
She said people were dying while the agency was playing "a money game" and that was a crime against humanity.
"When they pride themselves on the level of discounts that they get and they pride themselves on having this model that the rest of the world is envious about, it's all based on finances."
"It's fundamentally wrong," Ms Tolich said.
"They need to stop measuring success based on finances. I know that they've only got so much money but there are fundamental flaws in the way that Pharmac has set up and the ultimate outcome is that it's the people that are paying the price
Can you not for a second Psycho Milt put yourself in the shoes (or wheelchair) of these petitioners and imagine how you'd feel knowing that in Australia this drug is publicly funded but not here?
OTOH you might be quite comfortable with the way Pharmac operates…all that power over life, suffering and death.
Sure I can put myself in their shoes. I can also put myself in the shoes of diabetics in countries less well off than ours, who don't have my luxury of subsidised insulin etc. They probably harangue their own governments. Some countries are wealthier than others, sucks to be the others.
I'm still not seeing what the proposed alternative to the current model is, unless it really is just "best sob story gets the most funding."
It's the cold math of harm minimisation within a fixed budget. Like food and water rationing after a shipwreck.
Those petitioners miss out so others don't.
What would be interesting is looking at the sum total of all the petitioners in a year and how much more that would cost. I suspect that once the hail mary medications are excluded (the sort of "go to Mexico for experimental therapy because everyone here dies soon" situation), it wouldn't break the bank.
It's the cold math of harm minimisation within a fixed budget. Like food and water rationing after a shipwreck.
But how does one decide which drug gets funded….. who gets to live?
Perhaps the state should only fund drugs/therapies which cure.
Everything else is merely fending off the inevitable.
Let's get serious about these efficiencies.
But how does one decide which drug gets funded….
Here you go:
File under – people doing all they can to help. From kākāpō Recovery off fbook.
What new taxes could Labour look at introducing that would be largely acceptable to the majority of voters?
An entry tax for tourists?
A tax on foreign property buyers?
A higher income tax on the 1%?
These are some that come to mind.
Most here would like to see Labour do more of its "let's do this" so lets see if we can give them a hand in finding new and acceptable ways for them to fund it.
The problem isn't a lack of ideas for income.
The problem is the level of vulnerability it causes to NACT tropes of "tax and spend".
Choke point is the electorate, not the elected.
The catch cry of centre-left everywhere – blame the voters.
They're the ones not voting left.
What did the Alliance max out at? The Greens? Democrats? Any other left-of-centre parties?
There are no downtrodden masses of non-voters waiting to line up at the polling booths as soon as Labour decides to tell everyone left-of-left-of-centre to fuck off to your level of satisfaction. Life is seldom that simple.
I'm just pointing out blaming voters is a lose, lose situation. One which will have consequences, which up to this point has been the withdrawl from the political process – ironically hurting the parties you support.
But feel free to keep kicking the poor whilst they are down, I'm sure that will do wonders.
Higher/or more effectively regulated corporate tax structure.
Better regulated existing Capital Tax Gains.
Land tax for undeveloped residentially zoned land – to discourage landbanking.
Rating system specifically designed to charge higher rates to overseas owners – used in place like Prince Edward Island, where there are a high number of holiday homes. This rates are used to offset the social and knock on economic costs to the local community of having absentee property owners.
Capital equity lift taxes, on land that gets rezoned to residential and provides (currently) a large tax-free benefit to the owner.
Environmental tax on polluting industries.
Thanks, Molly. Some good suggestions there.
ad to that the decriminalisation of weed. Allow for it to be grown privately, for sale, regulate it, keep people out of prison and help them in a job that creates jobs and raises tax revenue all the while bringing the costs for incarceration down.
also it would free up police resources to concentrate on meth and the likes.
but, of course, no gummi bears that would be going to far.
You can always donate to the IRD chairman, set an example, don’t wait for others or as you suggest your all talk and no walk
And so Spring comes earlier than expected for the tax debate.
I'm a heavy smoker, thus donate far too much already, thanks.
Paying for your cancer treatment in advance isn't really benefiting the poor and needy in their hour of need, is it?
At the rate of tax being charged, I'm paying for mine and some. Moreover, saves you paying for my long-term dementia care. Family is riddled with it.
I don't mind paying for your dementia care if you ever get over your selfish addiction, though if you can't, ideally I'd prefer those high taxes on tobacco first go to support the families and thousands who suffer because of your nasty second hand smoke.
Or you could not be a self absorbed wanker and get a vape pen and just pay the gst.
It's far from being selfish. The savings from my dementia care at a $1000 plus a week will go a lot further than the tax revenue generated. And it will be one less ass to wipe.
No mention of the innocent victims and sufferers of second hand smoke, I see, just some attempt to crass rationale away your addiction and a bit more me, my, mine. That's not very left wing of you.
How dramatic. Well you can rest assured there are no victims of secondhand smoke where I partake. Hence, no mention. But thanks for your concern.
And the other smokers who aren't pretending their habits haven't harmed or affected anyone else ever?
Selfish, insular looking attitude, right there.
Smoking is also a small pleasure in a harsh world. A way to cope with a shit job, a shit boss, and truly shit wages. Let's not forget all other life pressures a moment away smoking can help you deal with.
Nooooo in the world the al1en, it nothing but a harmful indugalance.
Piss off back to the tory land you come from, you smug self indulgent middle class wanker
That's just rubbish as an argument, especially the bit about low wages, like you're moaning about having no money so will spend $30 on a pack of tailors. Only a moron would be that stupid.
Now we have much cheaper nicotine vapes available in NZ there's no excuse to smoke, except from wilful ignorance or obvious idiocy.
You mince yourself over any time you want to come and make me try.
But seriously, ignoring the middle class slur, using racism, that's not cool, a bit of a no no, like I wouldn't ever call you a crippled cunt, for example.
You really are a low life The Al1en, calling me a "crippled cunt"
I should add a sexist and homophobic as well. "You mince yourself over any time you want to come and make me try."
That said, your inability to understand idiom is truly outstanding. "tory land", a physical place in your world, how dumb can you get?
But the real middle class prat in you is the idea that violence solves anything – maybe grow might be the best call to make here – but I won't hold my breath.
Despite your calls of violence, you’re still very welcome to front up and give it your best to force me out. I’m quite easy to find. It’s not a secret.
If you have a problem with other smokers, take it up with them.
By the way, I don't provide high horse parking. Furthermore, smoking is prominent among the left.
Additionally, it’s far from a selfish, insular looking attitude when one ensures there are no victims. But it dose weaken your sermon.
Apart from the issue of slowest suicide ever and a sense of wanting less people to die of preventable illnesses, I don't care if people smoke or not.
Ultimately it's like people who drive gas guzzling cars; it can only go on for so long before the issue is moot – One when the oil runs out or the price to pay (at the pump or saving the planet) is not viable, the other when you're all dead or priced out of comfort. The main point is, just don't whine about the taxes you should be prepared to pay to indulge yourself in harmful and inhuman practices.
The whole I don't care if people smoke or not thing would have worked, if you hadn't carried on with the smug selfrightious wankery after it. It's pretty hard to associate smoking with inhumane practices, unless you some sort of ideological hack, wait, sorry, my bad…
I was right after all, it is just idiots I have a problem with lol
Smoking is harmful, driving gas guzzlers with climate change is inhumane.
Disagree if you’re that bothered.
There are a myriad of activities, food and beverages that can cause harm/death and risk shortening your life span. Therefore, singling out smoking in such a manner (NZ smokers are one of the highest taxed in the world) is outrageously perverse. Let alone the harm, fear and hardship these taxes have indirectly caused to society.
How many of those activities have a 50% mortality rate, just out of interest?
And many hazardous activities are indeed taxed, including via ACC levies. Alcohol and gambling are the exception rather than the rule. Gotta love lobbyists and electoral donations.
While many hazardous activities are taxed, none are taxed as heavily as tobacco.
There is only one activity that comes to mind that is a greater health threat than smoking and that is eating poorly.
First off, taxing and spending isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is something a Labour Government should be championing the benefits of – not cowering away from.
Secondly, some taxes are more publicly acceptable than others, hence I'm seeking suggestions on taxes that would be largely acceptable to the wider electorate.
Therefore, do you have any?
I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said the electorate has a tendency to believe it is a bad thing, a misconception encouraged by NACT rhetoric.
Some taxes being more acceptable than others does not always translate to "largely acceptable to the wider electorate", and some of those that do have the post-script "because they alienate and victimise already ostracised minorities". E.g. tobacco excise, maybe a tax on refugees/immigrants.
And largely reaffirmed by Labour cowering away from the debate allowing National to dominate and control the narrative.
I agree some taxes being more acceptable than others does not always translate to largely acceptable to the wider electorate and that some can alienate and victimise. Nevertheless, I'm seeking suggestions on what people would find largely acceptable to the wider electorate and preferably don't alienate and victimise.
So what have you got? Anything?
When the ideas are vacant the comments sections across New Zealand blooms. That's when debates are so big that parliament can not manage it and the ideas are vacant – the comments sections bloom.
Roger Douglas, yes I said Roger, Muldoon, Savage. These are people with big ideas and with big ideas comes big taxes. We've had GST introduced, income taxes. We introduce new taxes like we ran through gun reforms when every one is painfully aware why. When every one is painfully aware why introducing a pollution tax or a carbon tax necessary it will be because we find once again a philosopher King has emerged.
In an election that resulted in such a narrow victory, I'm not going to second-guess the BRR in avoiding that debate. Now they can largely keep an election promise, or renege. The latter reopens them up to the criticism they avoided.
As it is, they seem to be (or have been portrayed as) relaxing the BRR slightly.
And no, there is no tax increase or new tax that will not be broadly labelled as either a "brutal victimisation by the nanny state" or "relentless state persecution of job creators, especially in the regions" or "making hard workers pay for the lethargy of the unemployable".
It might be an idea to increase the number of tax brackets and lower taxes on the poorer folk, but even that would be a risk that requires regular polling on the specific issue to consider an electorally-sustainable levy. And that shit is not publicly available.
All you're really asking people here to do is to come up with random tax ideas that many people will find unacceptable, so sooner or later some nactoid says "these draconian ideas are being seriously considered by the people who want to take your money!".
Ponder this, if Labour hadn't been cowering from the debate for so long, moreover if they stood tall and took on that debate at the time there is a good chance the victory wouldn't have been so narrow. Especially if they came to the election with a tax package most would accept. Additionally, they now wouldn't be faced with a delivery and funding problem that may cost them the next election.
Rubbish. While one would expect an attempt to label new taxes as such by some it won't discourage the support of the larger number that won't be negatively impacted and can see and receive the benefits.
More rubbish. It's evidently clear I'm doing the total opposite, seeking suggestions on taxes that most would consider acceptable.
Which, with that slur exposed, now brings into question your intent?
Good chance? Based on your reckons. lol
Well, that would be a drastic change in the electorate.
While accruing suggestions that are just fodder for nact propagandists to target and make unacceptable. Including tory media columnists in that.
Even if I believed your intent was benign, it's electorally akin to trying to find an acceptable way to urinate in public. The first rule of taking a sneaky piss is not to tell everyone you're going to have a piss right there.
That's the main reason they did the TWG, I suspect. Deniability: "it's independant advice". It's not us saying that. Anything positive comes up, they can implement. Anything unpopular, they simply rule out (CGT). Sorted.
Of course it wouldn't be based on solely my reckons. Internal polling would help guide them to come up with a largely acceptable tax package. That would enable them to win the debate.
Not at all. For example polls were showing wide support for a CGT.
While some suggestions put forward may not fit the bill, it's not what I'm seeking. Moreover, having a transparent discussion of this nature is politically healthy and should be encouraged. Not frowned upon like taking a sneaky piss.
And once again that is yours and Labours problem, falling into the right wing narrative that tax is something to be ashamed of.
Be left, be proud.
That the BRR and, more recently, the ruling out of a new CGT were probably contributed towards as policy by Labour's internal polling, no?
That's the narrative the electorate fall for.
You want to change that narrative, change the electorate attitudes. But that takes time.
It's all well and good to be proudly left in opposition, but you can't do shit for the country there.
BRR, perhaps. CGT, very unlikely. That was kept very close to the chest. Moreover, other polls suggested otherwise.
And as polls have shown, it's not the narrative the electorate have totally fallen for. That's more a line the right within Labour tend to push. Thus, your argument holds no weight.
Firstly, you can poll about policy ideas you want to keep "close to your chest". It's part of the process.
Secondly, CGT by itself might have support in polls, but that's just for opinionists to wank over. Real political polling also involves consideration of how the opposition will frame it, segmentation, and net gains/losses. There's a bit more weight than your reckons, there.
Who supports CGT? The left. How likely are they to move away from Labour or a likely coalition partner to support the opposition if CGT is abandoned? Not very. Are there other policies the left value more highly? Probably (another indicator from internal polling). Will CGT attract more voters from NACT/NZ1/nonvoters than it alienates? Up to internal polling to determine.
Or they could have made a major policy announcement committing the rest of Ardern's premiership without any idea of how it would affect their support, as you suggest. Does that really seem likely to you?
While you can poll ideas you want to keep close, doing so increases the risk of information seeping. But that is not the only reason it was unlikely to have been canvased. Grant Robertson stated he was surprised by the blow-back the announcement received.
Supporters were/are gutted. And evidently, Robertson didn't see the backlash coming. Not the response of a well in touch minister that had done his polling. So yeah, a bit more weight than just my reckons.
Love to see what their internals said after that announcement.
Yes, the left support a CGT and I suspect this was a call from the right within to take the opportunity to dump it. Knowing full well (as you highlighted) their left supporters have nowhere else to turn, hence get given little.
So, not quite. Frankly, I think you're over-egging it, painting it as a cynical grab for the centre driven by incompetent polling. Because it's not like that's the only question on a survey form, even if a political party isn't part of a client package for the survey company.
Even though they've messed up the withdrawal, I'd add the tories to the anti brexit vote.
And given how Corbyn has gone against the pro remain rank and file, and suffered horribly in London because of it, like most of the country it seems, I wouldn't know how to categorise their vote.
I would have voted for a remain party, and actually wanting to win, like the rest of London I also would have to have given the tick to the Lib Dems rather than the greens.
Of course he did. He's a brexiteer from way back
Yeah, just thought I'd post it to generate a wee bit of discussion.
If we make the (admittedly fairly major) assumption that loyal Labour & Tory voters in these EU Elections were split in roughly the same way as they were at the time of the 2016 Brexit Referendum … and make the same assumption for all the other Parties … then we get:
Other (unkown stance) 5.0%
(Calculated from Lord Ashcroft & YouGov Poll breakdowns of 2016 referendum vote)
Then again … I suspect those still supporting Lab / Tory / LD / Green / SNP are more Remain-leaning than the support-base of those Parties in 2016 (many Brexitiers having headed off to Farage & to a lesser extent Ukip)
So, probably something more like:
Always an interesting debate with a decent analysis
Took my twelve year old son to see Endgame, and noticed that at the end of the credits was an acknowledgement of the grant given by the NZ government.
Quick google search, and I couldn't find the grant relating to this particular movie, but did find the others, including the list of grants given to other blockbuster productions.
It looks like the grant is around 20-25% of any spending allocated to NZ production services. When looking at the fact that any GST collected on spending is only 15%, means that an extra 5 – 10% from taxpayers are given alongside that loss of taxes collected.
It just seems immoral to me, when we have so many social issues to be giving these funds to production companies that are making millions.
I know the theory is that this funding develops the film industry, but the film industry it develops is further American stories told to the world, when investment could be given to a local industry and workers that support and distribute other perspectives could tell different stories to our region, and the world.
Anthony Albanese to become Labor's new leader unopposed following shock federal election loss
Albo & Plibersek = from ALP's Left faction
Bowen = Right faction
In presenting a Victoria University study, RNZ's Mediawatch completely destroyed the petulant Barry Soper when he criticised the Pike River families for requesting some privacy at the mine entry. His base premise seemed to be 'we're paying for it so we demand to see tears'.
What a creep.
He also claimed that just one incident in the immediate aftermath of the disaster was the only blemish from the media. Actual analysis of the performance of journalists paints a very different picture. One of people like Soper hounding grieving families so they can sell copy.
Time Magazine asks:
So will efficiencies increase consumption? They will at Air New Zealand. Instead of using the new efficiencies to cut back, Air NZ intend to push the new efficiencies to the max.
The Green Party MPs have the power to end this market driven madness. All they need do, is one thing. STOP FLYING! This would act to immediately spike Air NZ's plans to use the new efficiencies to push consumption through the roof.
We live in an age where activists must become politicians and politicians must become activists.
If the Green MPs threatened to go on a flying boycott even for just one month. Air NZ might have to reconsider their plan to use the new efficiencies to increase emissions.
I think the response from Air New Zealand would be somewhere between "oh,OK' and total bewildered silence.
How much air travel do you think 8 MPs can do?!
Your are probably right Solkta, Air New Zealand may very well be bewildered.
But I think the first immediate thing we would see, would be a drop in the share price of Air New Zealand.
This should shake them out of their bewilderment. Being a major shareholder in Air New Zealand, it would also rivet the attention of the rest of the government.
Maybe then we could finally have the debate on climate change in parliament that needs to be had.
If from this debate the seriousness of climate change is revealed to be a great a danger as Extinction Rebellion claim it is. Then maybe more MPs will refuse to fly. And not just MPs, but many other New Zealanders as well.
The science behind Extinction Rebellion’s three climate change demands
ENVIRONMENT 25 April 2019
But I think the first immediate thing we would see, would be a drop in the share price of Air New Zealand.
As to how much do our MPs fly? They fly a lot.
But it is not really a matter of how much or how little our MPs fly, it is a matter of giving a lead. Greta Thunberg has given such a lead and has refused to fly, even to take up an invitation to cross the Atlantic to speak before the UN General Assembly.
How much carbon would one young woman generate or save by flying or not flying?
That's not the point, Greta Thunberg is giving a lead and setting an example. An example that she hopes will convince others to do the same.
In her own words, this is how she puts it:
In every line of this statement Greta Thunberg could be talking about our Green Party MPs.
Firstly: Our Green MPs have just sponsored a bill that contains not one single concrete measure to cut emissions, but instead will waste years, if not decades, arguing over who and what should change first, to achieve its various targets.
Secondly: Our Green MPs have a platform, and as Greta says, the bigger your platform the bigger your responsibility.
And thirdly: Our MPs, and particularly our Green MPs, fly far more than most, consequently their carbon footprint is bigger. As Greta says the bigger your carbon footprint the bigger your moral duty.
The missing ingredient in the global campaign against climate change is, Leadership.
As a way of giving a lead; One simple thing our Green MPs should seriously give their consideration to, is to stop flying.
Why are our Green MPs still flying?
With human beings, perception is everything
How can anyone take the danger of climate change seriously, when we see our leaders, especially our Green Party MPs and leaders, flying?
Now I am not saying that our leaders should stop flying altogether. What I am saying is that they need to severely and noticeably curtail their flying as an example to others and the world. In my opinion, domestic air travel should be limited strictly to the Prime Minister as head of state. And for all other MPs, only when they need to travel internationally.
Kia ora The Am Show.
Jack there are no available staff and some of the staff scent to schools have been rejected our government doesn't have a wand to make trained staff drop out of tawhirimate /sky be reasonable m8.
It's the same with Kiwi Built this story judy loves to jump up and down about in reality she helped create the PROBLEM. Hypocrite
Its cool the Wellington Law practice is giving people with disabilities work experience. I say he is correct people let their bias behavior discriminat against people with disabilities and don't give them a CHANCE .
Good on the protesters for the environment in Britain there is no planet B to move to when we stuff up Papatuanuku.
Never been hurt while using a Cellphone.
Cool its Samon launge week keep Pacific Culture going strong ka pai.
Ka kite ano
Whanau Climate Change Global Warming could have a devastating effect on our favorite sea food
Native pāua and kina are Kiwi culinary favourites, but new research from Victoria University shows climate change could take them off the table forever.
Warmer seas and changing ocean chemistry pose a threat to coralline algae – an organism crucial to the growth of marine species.
WHAT'S THIS?FULL COVERAGE
Victoria University biological sciences professor Dr Chris Cornwall said the algae's decline could have "profound consequences" for pāua and kina, including losing them entirely.
"In coral reefs, the loss of this cementing algae will further reduce reef growth already impacted by reoccurring mass coral bleaching events ka kite ano links below.
Some Eco Maori music for the minute.
I say that the wealthy countries should clean up their own waste mess .
I think its is bad for the environment to send this stuff around the Papatuanuku for OUR poorest cousins to grade and clean .for 1 the amount of carbon burned to export this stuff could be used at the wastes point of origin to recycle it .The West has to clean up its act.
For the past year, the waste of the world has been gathering on the shores of south-east Asia. Crates of unwanted rubbish from the west have accumulated in the ports of the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam while vast toxic wastelands of plastics imported from Europe and the US have built up across Malaysia la kite ano link below. P.S I don't have any problems with All Europeans most are good honorable people it just a few that are manipulating the masses to give them the power to make a big mess on our Papatuanuku all in the cause of higher PROFITS life has to come before MONEY.
Here you go Whanau I new simon was spraying wai into tawhirimate/pissing in the WIND with his figure on crime in Aotearoa using this tactic to stir up people's resentment of others. WTF. That behavior is so neotholic from the neanderthal and needs to be left in our history books. All the people of Aotearoa should be thankful for what we have a beautiful Aotearoa and learn to respect EACH OTHER. Not sling mud at each other In a quest for power. Sure things are not perfect but It's is improving a lot under OUR Coalition Government Rule. I can see it the positive changes Already.
Leader Simon Bridges told Morning Report yesterday there had been a 25 percent rise in "serious harm" crimes before the courts – such as rape, sexual assault, murder and manslaughter – since the 2017 election.
He said the figures came from district courts via written questions to Justice Minister Andrew Little, and that the increase was partly due to a "soft on crime" approach by the government.
However, government and police figuresshow a 2.7 percent drop – about 7000 – in the number of victims of crime reported for the year to January. The statistics do show a 4.8 percent increase in total number of serious assaults.
The crime rate in New Zealand has also dropped steadily since 1992 Ka kite ano link below.
Kia ora Newshub.
Let's hope that the teachers and government can come to a satisfaction compromise. There is still the phenomenon of teachers not striving when national was in power?????????.
I have said before that the rats in the kitchen needed cleaning OUT.
Tova I disagree it is not that damaging the governments budget leak .
I say that the correct department did not care for Vicky at all .People should be treated humanely in all states care organizations.
Ka pai to protesters protesting mining in Dunedin that the way let the neanderthal know we need to leave carbon in the GROUND I made a mistake this morning quoting Britain not Dunedin.
Ka kite ano
Kia ora te ao Maori news.
simon and co will try their best to fan the bad stuff out of the budget leak but it will be like water off a duck's back to Jacinda.
I seen that about Vicky not having the correct health care in corrections custody it not on good things Kelvin is cleaning up that mess.
I say alcohol sales should be taken out of supermarket.
Its cool Ngati Hine are working with kiwi fruit growers and packers .
Ka kite ano