Wtf?

30 comments on “Wtf? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BLiP 1

   17 April 2009 at 6:40 pm

   Corporate welfare – unless those companies being show cased are going to be paying for it . . . rotflmao
2. infused 2

   17 April 2009 at 8:03 pm

   It may actually prove to be quite a good exercise, epically for exporters. China is the market to be in at the moment. Or it could fail. The cycle way was a fail from the beginning anyway. This seems like a more logical choice to spend cash on.

   Being a small company myself I’m about to localize an app that will hopefully penetrate the Chinese market.

   “Both Zespri and Solid Energy said they would be spending money on developing New Zealand’s exhibition to help draw the attention of the millions of visitors expected to visit the expo.

   New Zealand’s exports to China have been booming since the two countries signed a trade deal a year ago despite the global economic recession.”

   You must admit, this is a much logical.
   • aj 2.1

     17 April 2009 at 8:41 pm

     My question – what is more important than saving jobs.
     Well, nothing is, unless you never held a genuine intention to look after workers in the first place.
     • infused 2.1.1

       17 April 2009 at 8:48 pm

       Well if you’re a business owner and your business is going out of business, sometimes you have to let go of staff… that’s just how it is. The one thing I want more than anything at the moment is staff, I just don’t have the cash.

       I think this exercise will create jobs. The world is changing. Jobs are going to be lost, new jobs are going to be created. In my view the world is in a shift. It may not be economical to run certian businesses in New Zealand anymore. That’s just how it is. But at the same time, others will be created in their place.
   • red 2.2

     18 April 2009 at 4:35 pm

     What people like infused don’t get is that it’s not about having a pavillion or not, it’s about value for money. Key is spending five times more on this expo than we spent on the last one.

     Are you guys confident that we’re getting value for our taxpayer dollar out of that? Especially when there are things we could be spending that money on instead that would really make an impact by creating jobs and stopping more and more people going on the dole.
3. Kevyn Miller 3

   17 April 2009 at 9:05 pm

   My question – what is more important than saving jobs.

   My answer – creating new jobs.

   My question – where should those jobs be created? In poor countries where they will make a real difference or in obese countries?
   • BLiP 3.1

     18 April 2009 at 9:33 am

     Petrol Head:

     . . . My question – where should those jobs be created? In poor countries where they will make a real difference we can pay shit wages and trash the environment . . .
4. aj 4

   17 April 2009 at 9:08 pm

   Jobs created by cycleway = 0
5. SPC 5

   17 April 2009 at 9:21 pm

   FFS – Worldwide baby boomers have the cash and they don’t bungy jump in their 50″s and 60’s – they do try and remain active and so they do ride bikes. Thus developing tourism in this area will both sustain and create more jobs.

   As with the R and D tax incentives, Fast Forward, the cycle way is a sensible investment. Those blocking these things are undermining the future productivity of our economy. Promoting exports in a growth market is OK too – there is no wrong time for such investment.
6. Kevyn Miller 6

   17 April 2009 at 9:27 pm

   Jobs created by cycleway = 1

   But he’s a consultant and he wasn’t unemployed. Same old story of governments creating jobs for their mates.
7. mike 7

   17 April 2009 at 9:51 pm

   “Jobs created by cycleway = 0”

   Jobs created by Labour = around 30,000 bureaucrats that suck taxes from hardworking NZers. WTF?
8. aj 8

   17 April 2009 at 9:54 pm

   SPC, please look at the demographics of cycle tourists. The vast majority are not boomers.
   I will happily wait for history to prove you wrong.

   Mike, assuming those 30,000 could be dispensed with right now, without affecting services, tell us how much our taxes would fall.
   3,2, 1 cents per dollar or less?
   • mike 8.1

     17 April 2009 at 10:02 pm

     Thanks for the typical socialist reponse – 30’000+ unproductive positions is fine as our high taxes can accomodate it
9. aj 9

   17 April 2009 at 10:14 pm

   Mike, thank you for not adressing my question at all. The right have a drum to beat, lets not bother with numbers and facts.

   I repeat – if they are indeed unproductive, tell me the number in cents per dollar of tax each taxpayer will save.
10. Kevyn Miller 10

    17 April 2009 at 10:52 pm

    aj,

    “assuming those 30,000 could be dispensed with right now, without affecting services”
    Since the extra public servants have been added without affecting affecting critical services such as health, education and conservation in any positive way that actually does seem to be a reasonable assumption to make.

    But, according to Tanes recent post on the increase in the number of public servants there are only an additional 15,000.

    Assuming, for simplicity, the average pay for public servants is $40,000 then multiplying that by 15,000 gives $ 600,000,000 divided by 3,000,000 taxpayers = $200 = $4 per week (in round numbers), half the amount that Labour added with their petrol tax increases and therefore about the same amount the National is proposing to add with their petrol tax increases.

    The real problem with the 50% increase in public servants, as I see it, is that they’ haven’t been added ‘at the coal face’ where there is real value and need, especially in community health services.
    • The Baron 10.1

      18 April 2009 at 12:03 am

      Well, I’ll at least thank you for those numbers, Kevyn.

      Four dollars isn’t a lot to get worked up about, but in a cumulative sense could be a nice contribution.

      Would anyone like to try substantiate what services we would actually lose as the opportunity cost for that $4? Again, geninuely curious in the facts, rather than the spin.
      • aj 10.1.1

        18 April 2009 at 10:48 am

        Lets say, Kevyn has his way, 30,000 civil services jobs are junked, saving each taxpayer $3.85 a week.
        Kevyn we need to indentify exactly where these numbers are going to come from, if any services are cut or privatised and the cost to the taxpayer {for seeking such services elswhere} becomes greater than $3..86 then the taxpayer is not ahead.
      • Maynard J 10.1.2

        18 April 2009 at 11:33 am

        You’d have a stripped down government with no ability to create, examine implications of, and implement policy. So basically what we’re doing now, we’d be doing in 2020, 2050 and so on, until we decided to give that $4 back and get some progress.

        Left or Right, whether you like ‘The Government’ in a broader sense or not, it’s probably an idea to realise that we will always have one, and the decision is whether we want an effectual one, or a worthless bureaucracy.

        As I see it, having the bloody thing costs a hell of a lot – why not pay that little extra to make it good? Why have a car if you only buy petrol for 1.7km a week and have to walk the rest?

        My answer so far isn’t quite what you’re after, so some examples (some of which I’m sure you’d rather we were without, but anyway): Kiwisaver, the digitisation of the public service, Working for Families, Families Commission, adequate RMA, the Supreme Court, DOC’s structures collapsing less frequently, the ability of Transit NZ to identify roads that need upgrading as opposed to some polli’s pet project; these are the types of things that we’d have lost for that $4.

        (Edit-reply to ze Baron)
    • Kevin Welsh 10.2

      18 April 2009 at 8:49 am

      What happened to the other 1.2 million New Zealanders?
      • BLiP 10.2.1

        18 April 2009 at 9:36 am

        They have no economic value and, thus, are of no concern to the right.
        • jerry 10.2.1.1

          18 April 2009 at 10:16 am

          Quite right even though their parents, children ,partners may make up a portion of those 1.2 million clearly they have no concern about them.

          Oh but that’s right weren’t your the chap who came up with the obvious answer that the right are all practising certain sexual practices to prevent children being born so they clearly would have no children to worry about……what a sad little person webpersona you appear to be.
          • BLiP 10.2.1.1.1

            18 April 2009 at 10:31 am

            The sadness lies with you in that you distort the jocular to give impetus to insult.

            Result!
      • Kevyn Miller 10.2.2

        18 April 2009 at 5:11 pm

        The don’t pay taxes so they don’t directly receive tax cuts. Even if the taxcuts had delivered $4 to each taxpayer by the time you divide that by the number of children and other dependents various taxpayers are supporting the tax cuts end up being of miniscule benefit to children. For that reason Dunne’s WfF was a much more sensible way to distribute tax ‘cuts’.
11. infused 11

    18 April 2009 at 11:03 am

    Well that went way off track. I was talking about creating jobs here. Exporting… not creating jobs in China ffs.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      18 April 2009 at 3:26 pm

      In theory, a FTA does both – in theory.
      • infused 11.1.1

        18 April 2009 at 4:43 pm

        Yes, but a “trade show”, show casing New Zealand businesses could also help a lot more, no?

        Seriously, China is going to be huge for New Zealand.
        • wren 11.1.1.1

          18 April 2009 at 9:48 pm

          no-one’s saying don’t have a pavillion or don’t trade with china. the question is whether $30 million is value for money. do you think it is? why?
          • infused 11.1.1.1.1

            19 April 2009 at 12:34 am

            I can’t really say till theres more detail about it I guess, unless you can point me in the right direction?
12. aj 12

    18 April 2009 at 8:45 pm

    As I said

    Jobs created by cycleway = O
13. Whacky Lefty 13

    19 April 2009 at 4:27 pm

    http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/toll.html

    So why are cyclist required to wear helmets when Pedestrians & Drivers aren’t?

    BEC 2006 Predicting Accident Rates for Cyclists and Pedestrians
    http://www.ltsa.govtnz/research/reports/289.pdf

    Confirms walking is more dangerous than cycling, especially as the distance increases.

    2001
    11.4% of road deaths were pedestrians
    2.2% of road deaths were cyclists

    2002
    30% of pedestrians hurt themselves when walking
    24% of cyclists hurt themselves when walking
    (I’m not convinced these groups are mutually exclusive)

    5% of pedestrian hurt themselves while drunk
    2% of cyclists hurt themselves while drunk
    (I draw no conclusions here)

    December is the worst month for cyclist to get hurt
    March is the worst month for pedestrians
    (Not a mutually exclusive group I’m sure)

    Tuesday is the worst day for cycle accidents and Sunday the safest
    The opposite applies to pedestrians.
    (There can be no doubt left that if you can’t stand on your own two feet you probbably can’t cycle very well either).

    Happy to accept I’m the only one who can find Stats even the slightest bit funny.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS