Question 2

15 comments on “Question 2 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bryan Spondre 1

   11 July 2008 at 11:44 am

   “Why did it take press releases from unions and blog posts and interviews with a minister”

   All of these parties having a vested interest in attempting to discredit the report. Labour can’t seem to catch a break at the moment 🙂
2. Steve Pierson 2

   11 July 2008 at 11:47 am

   Bryan. And you’ve got a vested interest in talking it up but you know the report is flawed and today’s media on it thoroughly discredits it. the question is why did it get picked up as gospel in the first place?
3. roger nome 3

   11 July 2008 at 11:50 am

   jesus bryan, stop embarrasing yourself. It really is painful to watch you know.
4. Bryan Spondre 4

   11 July 2008 at 12:18 pm

   Steve: “today’s media on it thoroughly discredits it.”

   ” “The economist’s analysis is unfortunately very lightweight and shows a lack of understanding of what departments’ budgets actually pay for,” Mr Mallard said. ”

   One article from the NZPA with no journalistic analysis in the NZ Herald and quoting Trevor Mallard is hardly the media thoroughly discrediting it.

   “Core public servants earn on average almost NZ$8 an hour more than those in the rest of the economy, including those working at the coalface for government as teachers, road workers, nurses and police officers.”

   I wonder how the PPTA feels about teachers earning less than the clever people at the Ministry who waste money on badges and can’t fix a schools sewerage system ?
5. Robinsod 5

   11 July 2008 at 12:23 pm

   Bryan – it’s already been explained to you that the article you cite is using the wrong data (ie the QES rather than the more accurate and appropriate LCI). I note you haven’t responded to that clarification. Might I politely suggest you are retarded?
6. Bryan Spondre 6

   11 July 2008 at 12:30 pm

   Steve: “today’s media on it thoroughly discredits it.”

   No sign of any fisking at all of Cameron Bagries report over at the politics page at Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/0a6160.html .

   I’ll check out TVNZ & TV3.

   Robinsod: you appear to be using the wrong end of the horse in your Gravitar 🙂 Haven’t you got a lecture to attend or an assignment to complete?
7. Robinsod 7

   11 July 2008 at 12:34 pm

   Bryan – the last lecture I attended I delivered. So tell me why you are still trying to pass those stats off as correct when they have been proven to be based on the wrong data? Or do you not understand the difference between the QES and the LCI?

   Oh and bryan? It’s an ass not a horse – go feed your monkey…
8. Bryan Spondre 8

   11 July 2008 at 12:35 pm

   TVNZ & TV 3 don’t seem to be “thoroughly discredits it.” either.

   Ponsonby News perhaps ? That always has glowing articles about Judith Tizard.
9. Bryan Spondre 9

   11 July 2008 at 12:41 pm

   Robinsod: “when they have been proven to be based on the wrong data?”

   Don’t you mean: the data that most embarrasses the Labour government ?

   “”The economist’s analysis is unfortunately very lightweight and shows a lack of understanding of what departments’ budgets actually pay for,’ Mr Mallard said.”

   Trevor Mallard’s response is classic PR company spin. Whatever you do don’t go anywhere near the facts. Discredit or belittle the authority of the person.
10. Robinsod 10

    11 July 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Don’t you mean: the data that most embarrasses the Labour government ?

    No – I mean the wrong data. As in the data that is not considered by any credible expert (and most casual observers) as the best fit measure for the situation under discussion. Tell you what mate – I just undertook a survey in my office (of one) and got a 100% response rate concluding you are a retarded pig-f*cker. I realise you may disagree but it must be true. I’ve got the data to prove it.
11. Pascal's bookie 11

    11 July 2008 at 12:57 pm

    ‘sod, I just replicated that result over here. Must be true.
12. bill brown 12

    11 July 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Excellent, 200% of people can’t be wrong!
13. Steve Pierson 13

    11 July 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Now, come on a little less of the personal abuse.

    But Bryan, you’ve got to start trying to contribute at a more sophisicated level or you’re just a troll and people will get annoyed. We don’t want, or need to permit, our threads to dominated by trolling.

    There are a number of sources offering crtiques why this report has no crediblity, how about you engage in actual debate with those critiques rather than attacking the people voicing them?
14. Ari 14

    11 July 2008 at 4:31 pm

    Bryan, those releases all contain enough fact-checking that even if there is spin buried in there, it’s pretty transparent that they’ve debunked the original report quite easily.

Links to post

1. Did ANZ-National attack the public service? « The visible hand in economics: posted on 11 July 2008 at 12:33 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS