They should give them all ponies too. And round trip tickets to Disneyland.
I have no clue what you're on about, lprent (what the hell is up with nobody here using a real name anyway?!). Go to Offsetting Behaviour, hit the sidebar link on minimum wages. The bit relevant to New Zealand started with a very basic ordinary least ...
You're right that I do not show causation. What I did show is that youth unemployment, relative to the adult unemployment rate, went crazy very shortly after the youth minimum wage was hiked to the adult rate - and went crazy in a way that it didn't in any...
You're seriously going to put "Marty G" up as the best critique?
I tend to think it rather important in policy making to separate questions of desert from questions of feasibility. I don't know anything about desert - I've no comparative advantage in sorting out who deserves what. But neither do you. What I do know ...
I was avoiding the point out of politeness, given that this is a Labour party blog. What happened at the end of 2008? Think hard. Something that just might have made Kiwis happier about who their government was (or was about to be) and about the likelihood...
You think the crash of 2008 was due to an oil shock? Interesting perspective. I trust that you've invested most of your assets then in oil futures?
Go to Google Scholar. Type in the terms (economic retrospective voting). Basic upshot of a whole pile of literature - the better the economy is doing, the better an incumbent will do. Think back to 2008 when your oil price graph tanks. What was going on ...
Overall strength of the economy determines both petrol prices and support for incumbents. You need something more than correlations to make your case.
Of course on the last bit; I'd expect it to be a bigger negative to Labour than to National, so it's why I suggested it. So your preference ordering is then (Labour govt with Winston) > (National govt without Winston). Pretty much any configuration with NZ...
Would you reckon that Labour could again go into coalition with New Zealand First? Suppose that the first two list places are Peters and Laws. And maybe the Sensible Sentencing Trust has bought a third place position in NZ First.
The odds on NZ First come from the contract paying out if Winston re-enters Parliament. If we take that as being due to NZ First passing the threshold rather than due to Winston or Laws taking a seat, then NZ First gets more seats in all states of the ...
First off, Taito wasn't his first name, it was his title. Also searched on "Philip Field" and didn't find it. But I picked Taito as most likely unique identifier. Just "Field" could bring up anything, "Philip Field" would miss anything that didn't have the...
Mr Hide said he was not putting pressure on Mr Garrett in terms of whether he should quit Parliament. "But it seems to me the people elected five ACT MPs -- not four and an independent," he said. The allocation of five MPs came after Mr Hide's successful ...
Umm, I'd thought the difference was that the Electoral Integrity Act expired. When Huata left, there was a legal mechanism in place by which ACT could get her expelled from Parliament so the next one on the list could come in. That would have taken a vote ...
I'm less worried about folks trying to deceive me and more about folks having deceived themselves. In general, if I'm spouting nonsense and somebody challenges me to put money on it, it forces me to consider how strongly I believe what I'm saying.
I can grant that somebody might take on a position for sake of looking convincing. But unwillingness to take on a position also says something.
1. Saying you believe X, but being unwilling to put money on X, suggests you don't believe X as much as you said you did. 2. Putting money on X makes it more likely that you believe what you said, especially if the money stakes are greater than the "...
I think folks here like to self-deceive about the relative chances of their preferred parties, both here and abroad. That one has money on it suggests passing some minimal hurdle.
Buying rather than renting is a bet that house prices won't depreciate substantially. I bought mostly because I wanted to set up heating to a North American standard. But had I thought in 2005 that we'd see a big property crash soon after, I'd have rented ...
And so is buying any share on the stock market (could go up, could go down), same for buying bonds, same for buying a house....
So, felix, if somebody at the bar insists that Canterbury never had the Ranfurly Shield in 2009 - insists it really really strongly - but then refuses to put money on it when you offer him the bet, that then, what, makes you more confident that he believes...
Could be; I've lost track. But Farrar would be one to be putting money on it on iPredict if he reckoned that. I like folks to put their money on it when there's a market letting them do so. Otherwise, I can never tell if they really believe what they're ...
iPredict is a futures market, not a gambling site. There's no difference really between buying futures contracts that pay out on the value of a barrel of oil and contracts that pay out on the outcome of an election. And, of course, if you're SURE that ...
If you're right, then you can go and make a TON of money on the betting markets, that have Labour at only a 30 to 35 percent chance of winning. If you believe what you're saying, go to iPredict, or to BetFair or to CentreBet, and put a pile of money on ...
Umm....you ran a back of the envelope, I spent a month working on it. Collected excise taxes very slightly exceed aggregate external costs (police, health etc).
Well, I suppose I better understand now where the anti-tobacco side is coming from. If you reckon that there's little difference between rounding people up at gun point and throwing them into gas chambers, and selling cigarettes to people who voluntarily ...
iPredict has Brown with a 55% chance of winning; Banks at 39%. Brown will come down a bit in the polls with the credit card stuff, but he's still odds on favourite to win according to folks with money on the line.
Checked -- Greens and Maori opposed.
When did the Police gain this power and what were the various parties' voting records on it? @Sanctuary is right on asset forfeiture: only the Greens and Maori made a stand against that nightmare - Greens very likely because Nandor Tanczos understood how ...
Yeah, I should have said "retired".
Recent Comments