Living in New Zealand

Campervan for sale for $NZ5000 at Auckland or Queenstown Airport

2012-05-16T20:32:00.003-07:00

We are looking to sell a nice vehicle well-suited to campervanning. We used this vehicle for campervanning as well as mountain biking. Its a really good vehicle for these purposes because:

1. Short wheel base

2. Handles really well

3. Good size for camper and off-road

4. Not a conspicuous camper

5. Its a relatively new model (2001) - with low 143,000kms

6. Hanging points - you can easily fit the vehicle out - we will tell you where to go.

This vehicle has around 143,000kms at present; its a manual 5-transmission, 2001 model, it goes really well mechanically. It has a lot of rust in the 'hood' over the drivers compartment. This is not a problem for obtaining the warranty of fitness because it is classed as an accessory which can be removed. In fact I renewed the WOF 3 weeks ago. The car is almost due for new tyres, and that will be about $380-400, so we have discounted it as much.

I am travelling to Asia in the next few weeks so I am looking to sell this Holden Combo. Its currently at Queenstown, however I intend to move some homeware to my house on the North Island. Ultimately we will likely fly out of Auckland Airport, however we have still to book flights.

Anyone flying into Queenstown or Auckland looking for a campervan could not be happier than with this vehicle for several reasons. It is not as conspicuous as a camper - because its a delivery van. Its a 1600cc engine, so low petrol consumption. Its short wheel base makes it suitable for off-road use. i.e. We take it off-road for MTB trails. The vehicle comes with a roof-rack as well.

We are looking for $4500 for the vehicle, or $5000 with new tyres. If we cannot sell the vehicle we will look at selling it through Turners. We would however prefer to give a discount to a direct buyer than a commission to Turners. We can deliver the vehicle to a person at Queenstown or Auckland airport. Auckland is preferred, as we need to take our bikes to the North Island. Email us at shouganai1 at gmail.com.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Long term interest rates outlook - NZ

2012-04-19T15:21:00.004-07:00

NZ - read this and learn - inflation rates will be down for 30-40 years so go out and buy a home, or float your interest rate. There is going to be a rise in rental yields, so you may as well do it now. We are not going to see inflation because China, India and others are resulting in a global oversupply of labour. Unions will probably disappear; but we will need to see land reform to avoid hardship in future. Hopefully the anti-intellectuals will not drive up into civil war.

NZ is of course strongly reliant on overseas savings, however the international rate will remain low.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Racism in NZ

2012-04-13T14:00:00.003-07:00

Racism is rife in NZ. Interestingly however it does not preclude you from surviving in this country. There are a number of strategies for avoiding it:

1. Don't walk on sidewalks; as you stand a greater risk of copping a beer bottle in the back of your head.

2. Deal in business through a local who gives you credibility. They will however extort a value from you, i.e. You pay them $80/hour to act as an agent for you, when they collect $130/hour...simply to facilitate the trade with a racist client.

3. Don't live or holiday where racists prevail or dominate. i.e. Anywhere from Wanaka to Christchurch is a problem, as well as the North Shore of Auckland, and I suspect Napier and Nelson areas, but that's just a guesstimate based on my analysis.

More interesting is how people are dealing with it. I see today that TV One News has released a story of how New Zealanders are now miraculously less racist today because of the earthquake. This strikes me as political correctness more than an actual shift in values. The attitude seems to be that - since racism is a taboo - if we convey a story that racism is not present and legitimate - then we can drive the racism underground. It just might work.

I guess you have to praise their efforts; but it makes you wonder whether the motivation is really just to protect those tourist dollars. I note that a different headline advances the argument that racism is getting as bad as Australia. This moral relativism perhaps betrays the moral commitment of some Kiwis because racism is far more prevalent in NZ than Australia; though of course much depends on where you live. I've lived and been in most places in both countries; and always with Asians...and I might also place this all in perspective...there is plenty of racism in Asia...that does not justify it.

The problem of racism arises for several different reasons:

1. The expectation that people accept your cultural edicts - and their unwillingness to do so

2. The attribution of certain value judgements to certain people

3. The collective persecution of certain people for not accepting or adopting your values

4. The attribution or correlation of certain negative consequences with immigrants. i.e. Usually economic consequences like the prospect of your neighbourhood becoming a ghetto, or overcrowded, lots of litter, unemployment (i.e. you can't geta job because of immigration).

5. The lack of connection with these people; or superficial exposure, that precludes people from appreciating their context

These factors constituent reasons why people might feel compelled to display racist sentiments. The flip-side is that Westerners feel more open and vocal in their right to express racial sentiments, so racism is more apparent in the West. The effect is the opposite. In the Philippines, people will travel 20kms to meet me because they think they can get some money out of me....because all foreigners are wealthy right? Or freely dispense visas. There is such a lack of awareness in the West as well. Not all Asian immigrants are factory workers; or retired prostitutes. A great many of them have more university qualifications and entrepreneurial zeal than yourself. Surely the best way to cure racism is to sentence offenders to 1 year of living in a foreign 'Asian' country. When I was in Japan 10 years ago, the 'truckie' father of an English teacher came over to stay with him; he was cured in 3 weeks. Over that time I witnessed a transformation in his personal expression and mode of engagement.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Report card for National Party

2012-04-09T21:45:00.003-07:00

Ok, here is my report card for NZ's National Party....I got a bit bored going through this list....but it gives them something to start on.

See this policy list from the National Party - reading this I am inclined to think that there is a lot being done. What is wrong with it? Firstly I am inclined to say that the National Party is not doing a very good job at getting its message out to the public. This is a document that needs to be dispersed. But it really is so anti-intellectual in the realm of welfare policy, education. It simply resorts to paying off the Maoris; as if that will advance welfare. There are huge opportunity costs by not acting.

1. Future fund – good stuff

2. Road development – why does the govt need to develop ‘new’ roads; or is this merely ‘justified’ maintenance.

3. Road arteries – why does the country need to invest in new arterial roads when oil prices are high and the population is static. Is there any return on this investment?

4. Regional road infrastructure – probably justified

5. Regional rail infrastructure – probably justified

6. Regional infrastructure – probably justified

7. Regional rail infrastructure – justified in the context of higher oil prices

8. Auckland rail infrastructure – justified in the context of growing population and higher oil prices

9. Inter-island terminal – they are studying the value of a terminal at Clifford Bay. This would avoid the mountains around Blenheim and Kaikoura. Container terminal on the south island might make sense, but is this a govt project? And its already fairly close to Christchurch. The market appeal could only be for local trade? Why not a connection to Australia?

10. Broadband – worthy spending

11. Rural broadband – not a priority beyond the major towns; at least not off main trunk lines and towns under 40,000.

12. Digital switchover – fine

13. Network for learning – fine

14. National grid – fine, the network is not terribly stable, so needs upgrading, though they need to fix the pricing model for electricity.

15. Home insulation – sensible intent, the problem is the subsidy just forces up the installers fee. I would also add that it contradicts global warming. Insulate houses and people start heating homes, stop wearing woolen garments. i.e. they buy cheaper Chinese cotton, stop buying expensive NZ wool.

16. Upgrade state housing – better still fix the economy so they can buy the home, and given them incentives to do so.

17. Health expenditure – There is an expectation of the latest medical technology; this requires more spending in this area. Popular policy; but priority beyond immediate maintenance? Maybe it makes more sense to send people over to Australia? I wonder if shared infrastructure with Australia is a better model?

18. Schools upgrade – Probably justified, but the problem is that the biggest issue is school ‘content’ not infrastructure. Kids don’t learn to think at school. So this is a very anti-intellectual policy…typical of a pragmatic govt.

19. Earthquake Recovery – Fair enough

20. Sports stadium – not sure why this is policy. Popular…but it doesn’t make money.

21. Resource consents – this is very important policy – reasonable expectations

22. RMA streamlining – this is very important policy – reasonable expectations

23. RMA council punitive fines – this means the rate payer pays right? Well, I guess they get the investment, and can spurn council?

24. RMA streamlining – fine

25. Natural hazards – RMA consideration of natural hazards. Really? This is new?

26. Fresh water policy – fine, but is it a priority?

27. Simpler plans – sometimes simple is not the issue.

28. Trial employment – I don’t agree..employers will just pay staff to leave earlier, so its just a cost. You can’t legislate common sense.

29. Personal grievance reform – This is probably the way to deal with last issue. Not compulsory labour costs

30. Holiday Reform – This is ok

31. Hobbit law – yep, keep the film industry happy

32. Youth wage – yep, kids need every opportunity to save money to leave the country.

33. Collective bargaining – End collective bargaining, its extortion; though you do have to offer people a union-based channel to take grievances to some objective employment court; or ‘grievance’ system (see #29)

34. Constructive dismissal – this ought to be part of #29.

35. Flexible worker terms – I understand worker needs for fixed roster, as well as corporate desirability for flexibility. i.e. Is this so hard?

36. Ban of lights & thermal power – There is no need for a ban on thermal power plant, as no one is going to build one now. Light bulbs issue; non issue.

37. State assets – selling power stations is not going to make them more competitive; in fact, you can expect greater extortion, as is happening by most of the larger businesses because there is no population growth, and inadequate regulation.

38. Utility competition – Making it easier for consumers to shift utility does not address the costs built into the system; that’s economic rationalism, but it does serve govts with an eye on asset sales.

39. Hedge market – sensible

40. Consumer compensation – sensible

41. Less regulation – cut bureaucracy but don’t abandon regulation

42. ACC funding – yep, needs to be sustainably

43. ACC ratings – yep

44. Employee levies – yep

45. Employer levies – yep

46. ACC choice – Any sign its over-priced? It might add to cost

47. ACC choice – Any sign its over-priced? It might add to cost

48. Mobile telecom termination – fine, but what about data??

49. Telco competition – fine

50. Productivity Commission – so late? Should have been done 2 decades ago…assuming that anyone will listen to it.

51. Mining & energy safety – good idea – 2 decades too late! Oh that’s right, Labour ditched it in 1993.

52. Fishing regulation – fine

53. Fast track building consents – good stuff

54. DIY reform – good stuff

55. Leaky homes – Drop this as installers just take the subsidy.

56. Building sector accountability – fine, but what about the extortion in hardware sector.

57. Financial sector reform of regulation – yeh, good one….you will never do it really. Or you will do it, then in 5-10 years you will undo it.

58. Financial service regulation – training is not the issue; ethics and responsibility are the issues, but you’ve spurned education, so toss that idea.

59. Kiwisaver investor – fine

60. Regulation of securities - fine

……

83. Water storage – yep, don’t build levy banks in Wanganui, build a river diversion scheme and generate more power.

84. Petroleum exploration – great stuff! You are listening to me. Personally, I’d be spending $100mil, not $40mil.

85. Environmental regulation – fine

86. Petroleum permits – fine, but retain a good state royalty; don’t give away all the ‘resource’ as you will end up with immensely rich people who did not earn it (all), and then the ghost of Helen Clark or Gillard (or you) will expropriate it.

103. Convention Centre – don’t use gambling to finance a convention centre. How silly is that. If it does not stand up on its merits, then don’t finance by appealing to ‘vices’. This is silly policy.

104. Air transport – What about air transport to Australia – open it up guys! I want to fly Wanganui to Newcastle or Byron Bay, not to Sydney.

This leaves me wondering what is missing – I would add the following:

1. Improve biosecurity – NZ food output is important, and so is Australia’s, so less please them to get greater access to the Australian market place.

2. Adopt ANZAC liberalization – open up deregulation of pan-Australian flights

3. Sell Air New Zealand – the enterprise is well-run, it will never be worth more than in a few years when the market recovers.

4. Adult education – What about intellectual literary and parenting literacy??

5. Local government reform - I don't see this on the list, but I understand some constraints are being placed on local govt...Good stuff.

6. Gas industry

Now, if we were going to be entirely honest, the National Party would also say that:

121. Prison construction - they are building more prisons because the economy is going to the dogs.

122. Taxation - they are building a $1 billion super computer to tax people better. i.e. More more pernicious form of enslavement because they don't know how to encourage people 'voluntarily', they feel compelled to tell us how its done.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Was the collapse of Canterbury Finance a surprise?

2012-04-07T18:33:00.002-07:00

I was just going through my newspaper clippings and I came across an advertisement which is rather interesting. It is an advertisement by South Canterbury Finance, the now liquidated financial services company that was supported by the government. Some interesting facts emerge:

1. They disclose a $NZ 82.7 million Net Profit Before Tax in the year to June 2008; not so great on on the $2 billion in assets. i.e. that's 4%, and that was before the slump in the markets

2. They had a investment credit rating of BBB-, which is a pretty poor credit rating.

3. They are expanding, by adding an office in Wanganui, a dying rural town you might say given that since 2006 its population has been falling. Clearly they were appealing to a rural constituency, and they wanted to grow their assets to allay doubts.

So its not like there was no evidence of problems....and that's just from their own promotion. The problem is mostly that in NZ, no one knows how to read a balance sheet or the economic outlook. Just to put your minds at ease:

1. Look for a AAA+ or AAA- in the credit ratings; and respond when the credit agencies do because they can work on the basis of perceptions, just as you do...or context if you like. In a bull market, no one cares about a bad credit rating.

2. The outlook is for higher commodity prices, strong NZD, a two-speed economy, with high oil prices, the strong NZD going to undermine economic activity. There is going to be an attack on North Korea and Iran within a year; they will be short-lived occurrences, but they will hit market confidence, so sell your shares. The US and other central banks will then look to offer stimulus, so you might expect a recovery thereafter. Give it a year to turn around, so we are 2 years away still from the resumption of the China 'bull market' story.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Best aspects of New Zealand

2012-04-05T20:31:00.003-07:00

There is so little in New Zealand that is good, however a few things that come to mind:

1. The cool crisp breeze when its accompanied by a blue, clear sky....not bad for power generation as well.

2. NZ apples - they are juicy and sweat

3. Whittakers chocolate - when its on sale. Sadly, they know its good. :( Still, chocolate in NZ is relatively cheap.

4. Southern alpine ranges - a great source of scenic and recreational pleasure, i.e. photography, mountain biking.

5. The political system - NZ has at least in relative terms the best political system in the world thanks its its Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system which gives small parties a break; the absence of a constitution, which means its got no entrenched system which makes it impossible to change; no redundant 2nd house or state parliaments, thanks to its small size and population. Sadly, that is trumped by a great many unthinking people.

6. Cheap housing in nice places - NZ has some of the cheapest housing in the world. Even if its crap housing, it does the job, but you have to be prepared to live in depopulating locations which seldom offer work. Paradoxically this means you will have money, but a desire not to spend it. So its not really a good deal.....you are better off looking at Japan. Houses are so cheap there.

7. Queenstown is probably one of the best places to live in the world. The only negatives are that its expensive because of zoning restrictions, and its got a short day being so far south, and its a little on the cold side, but relatively ok. Its great weather most of the time, its chock full of lifestyle activities, close to airport, direct access to East Coast Australia, and its mostly owned by Aussies...well, at least it should be. I don't know why we have not annexed it yet. I guess the Closer Economic Relationship (CER) is just the politically correct way of doing it. I note that Bob Carr, NSW politician bought land here, so we are close to having a new government here. Provisions have already been made in the Australian Federal Constitution...its all good. Just need to buy out the 'All Blacks' and change their logo to another 'black thing' and they will never know the difference.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Japan property cheapest in the world

2012-04-02T15:36:00.004-07:00

According to a recent survey, NZ has the second most highest property prices in terms of income in the world after Canada. Also noteworthy is the fact that Japan has the lowest housing prices in comparison to income. I encourage expatriates and Japanese people to look at the foreclosed property market because houses can be bought very cheaply through this route. I bought a 5br dormitory just 1hr train from Tokyo City Central in 2004 for just $US28,000. Prices have gone no where since. Its particularly cheap in rural areas; but being a populated island archipelago, its hard to get far from a major city....but you would be surprised how much scenic nature this country has, and how easy it is to explore by cheap train services. The yields are exceptionally good, and there is no better way to buy than via the foreclosed route because of the lack of competition as well as the security of dealing with the Japanese court system. They even help you remove any 'problem' owners....but anyway most Japanese are so polite, they might even help you move out. Mine was lovely...gave me some advice...to clean our the pine needles from the roof guttering....since his home had a little water damage. Perceptions of people wanting to cause injury to you are over-stated. Consider that most distressed buyers are happy to stay in these houses just to get low rent. i.e. The banks want to claw back equity....but in fact the owners simply want to retain the cheap rent since Japan has for the last decade had record low interest rates....even lower than enjoyed by the rest of the world. I therefore recommend buying property in Japan because its such a pleasant place to live and to cheap to buy. The most expensive aspects of Japan are the utility and eating-out expenses, but you'd be surprised how reasonable it is to buy:

1. Takeaway - good quality for $5-8

2. Train - $3-4 even for outer city

3. My stepbrother is getting Wimax internet for $10/month under a special deal

4. Land rates - I pay $US1500 in NZ, but its just $300 in Japan, and its so safe I don't even bother insuring my place.

5. Japan Rail Pass allows you to travel around Japan for $300-350 for a week unlimited, including on Shinkansen.

6. Beers are Y600, but you can get as low as Y300 in Roppongi and drinking at home is really cheap.

I am simply blown away by Japan because there is simply no better place to live. I will be returning there in a few years I suspect, as my partner's brother lives there. My focus is however on work at the moment. Learn more about Japan foreclosed property!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Returning campervans vs flying

2012-03-25T12:44:00.004-07:00

If you need to get between airports, many of us would probably fly or get an inter-city bus. Another option is to do a campervan return. There are certain cases when this works well:

1. Moving home - If you have more luggage than you'd be taking on a flight, then you can take that with you, i.e. Say because you are moving luggage to a storage facility on your way to the airport.

2. Different departure - Say you live in one majority city or town like Queenstown, but you have an international departure from Christchurch or Auckland.

3. Expensive domestic flights - Say you live in NZ where domestic flights can be just as expensive as your international flights.

4. No bus service - Say you left your bus booking too late, then campervan 'returns' can be a cheap way of getting to the airport. You also have the option of making a slight holiday out of the trip.

5. No car storage - I will be flying from Christchurch airport in June'12 and will probably looking to sell my car at that time. I will probably look at buying a new car when I return rather than keep one in storage for 3 months over winter. In this case, it makes sense to sell my car in Queenstown, a popular entry point, and to return a campervan.

This is of course just another option for those probably with a lot of luggage; or wanting to do some shopping, etc in another city. In most cases, you will probably just get that domestic flight. The trick is to know where to go to get your campervan 'return' and remembering. There is a litany of campervans needing redistribution at Queenstown airport. You drive past them on the way to New World shopping centre. Try Camper Returns.

You can get the vehicles for around $5/day, with a $100-300 fuel allowance depending on the distance and their urgency. There are time constraints, however you have the flexibility to pay extra for extra days.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Mountain biking in NZ

2012-03-21T19:11:00.005-07:00

There are a few areas in NZ which are great places to hang out for activities. Chief among these places are:

1. Rotorua - Taupo volcanic zone on the central North Island - close to fishing, whitewater canoeing, skiing, mountain biking trails

2. Upper Hutt - close to Wellington, this is another gem for outdoor enthusiasts with MTB, whitewater canoeing, ballooning, hiking, fishing, etc. Wellington City unfortunately never did much for me.

3. Nelson - close to this town is good fishing, mountain biking, but not sure about the skiing, whitewater canoeing. Aside from the ferry to Wellington ($70pp + $120 for a car), its a pretty isolated region.

4. Queenstown-Wanaka-Hawea is good for mountain biking, skiing, whitewater slalom, as well as as raft of other sports and activities.

These are the activity centres of NZ I believe. Queenstown and Rotorua are the easiest to get to. Direct flights from East Coast Australia - at least for Rotorua (limited) and Queenstown (expanding). I might mention that this April 21st there is the Contact Epic MTB Challenge at Lake Hawea. Every year the farmers in the region open up their properties to cyclists to go around the lake. This country needs another 1-2million, then it will be a great place to live. Sadly, its struggling to keep the people it has.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

John Key unable to grow population

2012-03-20T21:45:00.003-07:00

New Zealanders are abandoning NZ at even faster rates. There are a number of good reasons for expecting this:

1. Canterbury (Christchurch) earthquake has given residents the hebbee geebees; and they don't want to place themselves in a situation where they could be vulnerable to another spell of it. The reality is that the earthquake rebuild will mean this will be a time of prosperity for those who go to Christchurch; though people will want to be careful about where they live, and what they live in. i.e. avoid brittle (brick in particular) structures; avoid loose sediment piles subject to liquefaction.

2. Cost cutting by government is going to see Australia absorb a lot of the public servants that the National Party is cutting. This is of course great for Australia since it adds to their demand; even if its 'good for nothing' public servants. The reality is that John Key is just killing NZ's potential for a recovery in economic demand. Paradoxically, public servants are probably among the nation's biggest savers. They have university education; but they didn't do much with it, so they lose point. They do eat and fart though; so Australia will take them.

The paradox is that NZ has some value propositions going forward. There are some brilliant Asian immigrants entering the country who really have a good work ethic. People are inclined to make generalisations about Asians. What they need to realise is that the ones that come here are usually the brightest in their 'over-populated' nations. I know some of them are difficult to understand. Geez, I spoke to a Chinese girl in Sydney. Very impressive....very smart...problem was I could barely understand here. Anyway, that aside, these people are very hungry, and they will greatly add to NZ wealth if NZ embraces them. Unfortunately, surveys show that Asians are the most discriminated group in NZ; followed by the Samoans. I personally this Aussies are persecuted here; but we can take it. We know its coming from a place of immense insecurity, so we can brush it aside. They all change when they migrate to an Aussie. They are never cured of the self-righteousness though. My mom has a NZ BF....he is forever saying he loves the country...but he never goes back.

The good news though is that NZ is dealing with the blow out in local government spending. Personally though, I don't believe centralising spending will make matters better. In fact it will just result in further job losses from rural areas, and this again could see more NZ'ers leaving. This government seems determined to drive NZ'ers out of the country. Everything they do is 'anti-jobs'. I appreciate the desire to make savings; but you don't replace a useless job with a useless welfare recipient. This will just compel them to go abroad. This will result in more job losses and business closures in the private sector; particularly in the rural areas of NZ. These towns are already over-serviced and over-capitalised, with depopulation still in some areas. We need the population of NZ growing.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is NZ an attractive investment for millionaires?

2012-03-11T13:22:00.003-07:00

According to David Shearer, the new NZ Labour Party leader, foreign investment is a threat to NZ. Think again. So why are they buying? Is NZ really such a great investment opportunity. Land values are growing 9% per annum on average. Others have other motives besides diversification. Some mega-millionaires are also escaping pernicious overseas tax regimes. NZ is considered a safe haven. The US govt has recently tightened its tax laws to pursue the stash of millions held abroad by American citizens. Some of those millionaires are rushing to leave the USA; to become non-citizens before they have to declare their assets to the US government. NZ offers 5 years tax holiday on offshore passive income - that is an added motivation.

Others are just spreading their investment risks. Irrespective, NZ is lucky to have these investments. Let's not persecute foreigners, who are more likely than not to invest here, for a land ownership framework which is wrong, and not for the fact that any person with a lot of land has the capacity to hold smaller buyers to ransom because of Western zoning restrictions. i.e. I'm currently trying to buy land in Queenstown. I could buy 10x more if I had 2x more money. That's the extortion racket perpetuated by our zoning system. The politicians are too cowardly to address it.

Shearer and others are populist reactionaries. Do they realise that when foreigners buy land, they actually raise the asset holdings of NZ'ers? Do they realise that this is a local basis for underwriting investment? Do they realise for every foreigner who buys, NZ money is potentially released for 'tangible' productive investment like factories. If these investments are not occurring, then its because there is no domestic demand. How can you grow local productive capacity when there is no population growth? Why would you develop an export centre in the far South Pacific when you can do it in Australia. The only plausible value proposition for NZ is:

1. Cheap labour - sorry, but NZ work ethic is not so appealing, Malaysia or the Philippines look better

2. Education - yes, NZ has potential as a source of educated labour, but broadly the values are so stinking collectivist/Christian dogma that they have effectively renounced their minds, and taken themselves out of the market

3. Software - yes, but without a consumer base, why would you do it here?

4. Content - yes, NZ is appealing for developing intellectual content, i.e. Books, movies, at least the Harry Potter fantasy style surely fits local values.

5. Resource - NZ is quickly closing its options off here. Don Brash would tell you that NZ has resource potential, but its only offshore, and it is substantial, but with Rena, maybe such projects will never get off the ground. Oil looks like NZ's only hope in this climate.

Personally NZ is the only place I'd buy in NZ at this time. It should be annexed by Australia. The problem of course is that its not light until 9am in winter. But it is just 3 hours to Sydney.

My advice is - leave the millionaires alone - they are not the problem. Its your political system which makes millionaires the scapegoats for Labour/Democratic Party reactionaries around the globe. Its the modern version of witch hunt. The media loves a tragedy; so they will willingly jump on such stories, scarcely knowing what the real story is. But then they were raised or nurtured by liberal academics detached from the real world.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Pike River Coal Mine Disaster: The cost of public administration

2012-02-10T19:11:00.000-08:00

The Pike River coal mine disaster highlights why you cannot rely on government to be engaged in operating or executive roles. There are several problems:

1. They are idiots - they do not know about life. Their entire thought process is antithetical to critical thinking. They are modern-day serfs; not suited to regulation or monitoring under the current system of govt.

2. They have a conflict of interest - The Pike River Mine was owned by the operating & marketing company Pike River Coal. This company was listed in Australia and NZ; but in reality the company was not so independent. It was substantially owned by Solid Energy; a 100% government owned enterprise. You can imagine how little compliance or accountability will result when you have two idiots talking to each other.

In the context of this case - a disaster was imminent:

1. The lack of public oversight

2. The gassy coals

3. The lack of UG mine experience

4. The recruitment of poor staff - those that couldn't get a job in Australia for 2x the wage.

Read this article. The problem here is public adminstration under representative democracy - it does not matter whether it was a Labour Party or National Party government. i.e. Labour cut coal mining inspectors; and National Party could equally care less.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ considering fees on national park entry

2012-02-08T14:53:00.001-08:00

It appears NZ is going the path of Australia and introducing fees upon entry to national parks. There are a number of issues:

1. Fees for what? The problem with such fees is that there should be some service attached to the fee. They should not be for general revenue raising; not to fund wildlife studies, but for the improvement in services that park users want, i.e. Toilets, information centres, walking trails. I frankly think NZ has under-invested in walking trails. I have driven around NZ several times, and you seldom find a walking trail, they are always poorly marked, so you inevitably get lost, wondering whether the trail is the 4WD track. I got lost in Mt Cook glacial walk because what I thought was a side-track to a pond never actually rejoined the trail. Not lost in the sense of dangerously disorientated; but mislead. It should not have happened.

2. Fees for whom? The idea of only charging foreigners is ridiculous. NZ'ers use these facilities as well; charge NZ'ers and keep the fees lower.

3. Fees for extortion: I personally think NZ is already charging excessive fees in some areas, i.e. the fee charged at Rotorua's hot springs is unreasonably high; and I'm inclined to believe its extortion by the local Maori communities who tap into this revenue stream, and probably do no work to maintain it. i.e. Just relying on Pakehe contractors to do everything...and live it up on the cashflow. I have no idea; just suspicious, as this type of jibe is not new to the world. Its the same with Uluru in central Australia. They apparently 'own' Ayers Rock because they saw it first, turned in into a mystical symbol. We really have to stop granting property rights to people who see things first.

Clearly some national parks justify fees; others don't. The greater the attraction; the greater the prospect of having visitors and them being prepared to pay fees....but please, do anyway with the idea of extorting wealth from people; it just stops people from doing anything. I've still not been to Rotorua. I refuse to pay $130 for a family to see a natural phenomenon; knowing that there are bus loads of tourists. They are not spending millions on maintenance and salaries each week...they are doing it because they can.

You can argue that its Maori property (or public Crown land), but I would argue they did not see the value; they had no notion of property rights, and they certainly did not 'earn it', and don't deserve it merely by being empowered by liberals to extort wealth. They can't even find good use for the money.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The Maori Holocaust - a point of reflection

2012-02-07T10:30:00.001-08:00

A NZ Maori academic has angered New Zealanders for comparing the colonialisation of NZ to the Maori holocaust in the wake of Waitangi Day. The question is whether the comparison is legitimate - or whether these comments were an effort to extract sympathy concessions from the colonisers.

In some respects you can say that the colonisation of NZ was analogous to the Jewish Holocaust. Consider that a very large proportion of the Maori population died with the introduction of European diseases; there were also battles with the army and skirmishes with settlers which were also going to take a toll on their population as they fought the European colonisers.

But there are some important differences as well. For instance,

1. The Maori did not develop their intellect sufficiently (largely because of their collectivist roots, lack of protracted struggle and small population) such that they confronted resilient, sophisticated enemies nor develop an enlightened theory of values, i.e. A framework for the development of personal rights. They would hence remain collectivist and some defiantly so.

2. The Maori had some element of empowerment in the sense that they were able to launch warfare themselves. The NZ Crown was responsible for Maoris, so as custodians they did tend to take steps to protect them, even if those efforts were under-resources, too little, too late, and subject to rationalisation.

I am inclined to say that there are no descendants able to complain about European colonisation; but this does not end the story. Maoris are today living in a certain context which was the result of NZ occupation. I would however be more worried about the context in which they are living today, not the injustices of centuries past. Why? Well, irrespective of whether they were treated well or not, in many respects they were treated better than the Pakeha (NZ colonialists). The reason is that NZ colonialists had to confront Maori attacks. They had greater resources at their disposal, but they had in some respects been subjected to the interests of the government more than the Maori. Maoris were eventually given land, and their grievances carry more weight today than 'British subjects' because there is some recognition of the plight of Maori....but there is no recognition that Pakeha are suffering; and that is because Westerners are more inclined to repress their subjugation. i.e. Pakeha are economic slaves to the government; forced to provide welfare support to Maoris; not because we like being slaves, but because we are forced to contribute to a form of government which does not solve the problem.

We might ask what was the nature of Pakeha subjugation to the British government; now subordinated to the NZ parliament. Well, its nature is that Pakeha are assumed to have certain rights as citizens; but this is 'conveniently' not a comprehensive or effective range of rights, such that they are actually slaves working for the sake of political middlemen; largely while many Maori live on benefits. We are not accustomed to treating benefits/welfare support as 'suffering' - more as 'support', but this is not entirely accurate because it is akin to child abuse to pander to Maori indulgence, and this is what the Pakeha have done to appease the political influence of modern-day Christian liberals as well as concrete-bound Maori who don't look beyond their short term expenses and consider their long-range self-esteem. There is no doubt that Maoris need support, but it has to be conditional upon certain objective standards. If its not; then the current issues of child poverty, high unemployment, high illiteracy and the current 'guilt industry' are destined to polarise NZ'ers into racial divisions.

Maoris are deserving of empathy; but Maori (in their sustained suffering as a result of poor Pakeha public policy) should not forget that Pakeha are deserving of empathy as well. This might not be easy when you are a sufferer, but its a prerequisite as a believer in justice. We have to rise above our concrete context, and think as intellectuals. Sadly, that message is lost upon both Pakeha and Maori. Its not about whose suffering was worse: its about how to expunge what still remains; a dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. Let's not turn this into a race issue; but focus instead on the question of delivering our expectations to government. The consternation of Maori ought to be shared by Pakeha and vice versa. Their common enemy is the government which:

1. Denies everyone personal sovereignty - whether Maori or British 'subjects'

2. Specifically a lack of economic rights - the govt right to tax needs to be at the people's discretion otherwise there is no prospect of accountability

3. This discretion need not be a financial discretion - but plausibly an intellectual discretion

4. The basis of our political discourse needs to be rational - not majoritism or 'numbers' based extortion of political influence.

When Maori and Pakeha jointly grasp that possibility; only then will they realise that representative democracy is not serving them; and that only a meritocratic democracy will. A meritocratic democracy is not a aristocracy; its a forum for rational discourse. It is a forum which affirms the interests of the rational; whether they are one person or 1 million; whether they are NZ or foreign citizens. Any other framework is a basis for abuse. If the option existed in the 18th century, it might have prevented the settlement of NZ. Its hard to say; as ultimately this political system had to develop. But unlike the contemporary system, a meritocracy will advance people's thinking, and not result in the systematic 'dumbing down' of voters we see today. More is said on this issue of course in politics blog.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Kiwis - a boat problem

2012-01-25T14:35:00.000-08:00

This is one of the more amusing stories to come out in NZ. It seems there is a 'Kiwi boat people' issue, as well as 'fly-by-night' Kiwis coming into Australia. Yes, a Kiwi resident multimillionaire has exposed to risk to Australia of people coming to Australia by boat or plane. Presumably these are low-flying planes which fly from the West Coast of NZ to some private 'bush' airport in Australia. It seems equally plausible that such avenues might be used for drugs into Australia....the implication being that NZ is a 'weak link' in Australia's border protection.

This issue comes to hand because of the Kim Dotcom fiasco. Australia seems more concerned about the influx of Arabs. Do we have a problem on our 'rear flank'...it would seem so. If we don't control the 'Kiwi situation', we might never stop them. :) These birds were flying when they left Australia. Some 50mil years after....they are flying back. You can't question their judgement...this Australia Day!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Wanganui: Small town thinking for big town problem

2012-01-13T20:30:00.001-08:00

NZ residents of Wanganui are being asked whether they ought to approve a $141 million flood mitigation plan - a huge cost burden for a depopulating town, when there is a far more prudent and lucrative opportunity - build a hydro-electric scheme. My thoughts posted at Wanganui Chronicle letters below:

How about a flood mitigation scheme upriver to avoid the prospect of a flood and generate hydro-electricity for a century for free. Maybe the city could get free electricity, to offset the extortion by the power companies after stage 2 of the privatisation/self-regulation. Perhaps the council could finance the scheme through its EnergyDirect investment (50% owned by the council)....though maybe self-regulation precludes such vertical integration. I forget.

I might add - a few greenies might be flooded out of the valley at the same time. Seriously, though, why spend $141.4 million on remedial work when you can create something of value or productive, that ultimately serves 2 purposes, perhaps 3 (water supply in times of drought).

This of course is too abstract for councils accustomed to reactionary solutions. Why spend on costs when you can create assets. Of course Annette Main, whose property lies in this vicinity could be expected to have a vested interest, so maybe no progress will be made. Perhaps she needs to keep a back seat in our extortion-based political system.

Think about the following figures - electricity prices in NZ - page 148 of the Ministry of Development website. Comparing the ratio of residential electricity prices / industrial electricity prices - suggests a 2.5x premium for residential consumers over bulk electricity consumers. Its the worst ratio in the world...then look at the same ratio for gas...its even worse 4.8x - so consumers are being ripped off by producers and distributors of gas and electricity despite the capital cost of these assets being fully sunk by govt by the 1980s, and no fuel cost for the 70% of generating capacity which is hydro.

Perhaps rate payers ought to convince the council to 'invest' in new generating capacity rather than spending on 'damage prevention'....that's a rather expensive contingency planning 'cost' for an event that may not occur; protection which might not work; and work that offers no improvement. Perhaps council could even protect ratepayers from the extortionate prices of the national powerco's by offering ratepayers a cost+ROI electricity price; or better still adopt market pricing, and retain the power asset revenue to alleviate future rates. Concessional electricity prices could also be used to attract new industries. You wanted jobs didn't you. Cheap electricity is known to attract jobs. But will you allow a dam on the Wanganui River?? If it protects your homes?

Am I missing something?

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The case for privatising NZ electricity assets

2012-01-04T12:54:00.000-08:00

According to the NZ Herald, Ernst and Young has produced a report which suggests NZ state-owned assets are reaping high returns; in fact higher returns than the median for private sector businesses. This poses a case of – why sell – when the public enterprises are more profitable, and the government has a lower ‘risk-free’ cost of capital than the private sector. There are problems with this analysis:

1. The fact that electricity assets are making huge earnings can actually be a good time to sell. The problem is that they are doing so because they are able to extort higher profits from the public because of poorly conceived self-regulatory electricity market. The NZEM is self-run and designed with private companies in mind. The implication is that these assets in private hands would lead to very high electricity prices, and either a lot of complaints by investors to re-regulate, or the high cost option of the govt buying back these assets. Think ahead NZ!

2. NZ’s economy is not growing, so you might reasonably expect these generators to use their market power to extract or ‘extort’ higher earnings from higher prices…because its not a competitive market, and the option-incentive for CEOs will be similarly driving all CEOs to make the same decision. The problem is CEOs have an expectation of driving higher profits. They can’t do that in NZ…so why are they not going overseas? Because they are too small, so hard to make profits. Most companies who invest abroad lose money.

3. Hydro-electricity assets are strategically important because no other substantial hydroelectric dams will be permitted by an ‘environmentally conscious’ NZ population. Hard to imagine any new dams being justified. More likely higher-cost wind capacity because its incremental, particularly with new molten-salt solar storage plants being under development. Expect solar wind farms around Nelson and greater island inter-connection.

4. There is a big overhang in the electricity market – the prospect of Rio Tinto not finding a buyer for their aluminium smelter, or the prospect of its closure in the next 5 years. This will result in 13% of NZ’s electricity demand ceasing to exist, so there is really no new demand for electricity in the short term. That means higher electricity prices on existing assets to justify lower sales. CEO’s will be forced to raise prices (since they can) to get higher salaries.

5. This of course underpins the ‘incentivisation’ idea of John Key. The idea that market discipline and ingenuity is going to see these CEOs extract higher returns. They will – but by mostly rising prices. Running a hydro plant is not rocket science!

The solution is to not sell hydroelectric power assets – except Solid Energy – which is a thermal project. The market is not a legitimately fair market regime, and the assets are politically sensitive in the sense that electricity costs are important for NZ’ers. If NZ wants to be competitive, this is not the way to go for small business or consumers. Next you will have to raise welfare benefits to adjust for higher electricity prices. It is really a hidden form of taxation. I’ve seen it all before in Australia.

“Labour says the Government delayed the release of the report until after Parliament rose for the holidays because it knew it undermined the economic case for partial privatisation”.[i]

Probably true; but then the Labour Party was too dumb to actually raise these concerns anyway. The argument was always there to be made, with or without the Ernst & Young analysis. In fact, I have made the case on Facebook, to the Labour member for Wanganui, and on my blogs. Doesn’t the Labour Party do its research? No, they seem to rely on policy from the top….and its all political ‘reactionary’ rhetoric. There are no analysts in the party…all party bureaucrats relying on analysis by government bureaucrats.

The fact that Mighty River earned a yield of 8.2% on its investment of course does not mean the asset will be sold for $3.5billion. However the fact that it’s a “no-growth” asset in terms of limited potential to build more dams because of environmental risks, and planning objections to wind farms, means any new capacity is high-initial-cost, but there is no population growth anyway. CEOs need incentives to stay in the job. You need to be sure there is no option incentive for CEOs to extort higher profits.

The problem I find is that NZ needs to have an intellectual debate about the values of this country. Either this is a socialist paradise or it’s a market economy. If you are looking at a ‘market economy’, then you need to look at foreign markets or increasing immigration. If you are looking at immigration, then it has to be significant volume to achieve growth in profits and asset values. That is what will retain people, and stop their movement abroad. This of course means NZ’ers need to come to terms with a NZ with a different cultural identity…this is the problem…most older NZ’ers don’t want this, so NZ is destined to remain a welfare state, with high costs and low-value opportunities.

Prime Minister John Key said the companies would "reap the benefits of sharper commercial disciplines, more transparency and greater external oversight".[ii]

Sorry, but this is not going to happen in a privatised market. Higher prices is what you can expect as the political pressures for lower prices evaporate. Greater external oversight? I doubt it. After privatising – the government is going to change the market structure? I doubt concerns about sovereign risk will allow it, and if the buyers are American, the FTA agreement will not allow it, i.e. They will sue the NZ govt. Of course if these assets are sold, then investors who retain these stocks will pay. My advice is take a stag ‘traders’ profit on these assets. Foreigners will not be interested in them. Too much sovereign risk.

“Ernst & Young's report shows the three companies have performed well compared to their private sector counterparts”. [iv]

That is because you are not comparing ‘like-with-like’. Other businesses can sell assets abroad. Australian power companies are servicing growth markets. You need to keep the context. When you buy a house in ‘no growth’ Wanganui, you expect a higher yield than ‘growing’ Auckland, i.e. Wanganui 12-13%, Auckland 5-6%. That is life, so expect 12% from these power assets; but these CEOs will push it higher to get an incentive bonus, so be very careful how the boards of these enterprises incentivise their executives.

Labour finance spokesman David Parker said the state-owned power companies' strong performance was "no surprise to me….This is further proof that these companies are already well run and profitable, and that they're not going to be better run as a consequence of private ownership…It further underscores that the only way these companies are going to make more money substantially is by increasing prices”. [vi]

True enough….but I suspect he does not know the reason why. It’s not because the yield is high or they are particularly well-run; it’s because they have the power to raise prices.

A recession and a self-regulated market context are not the right time to sell power assets. By all means sell Air NZ and Solid Energy, but again first eliminate the spectre of a 'carbon tax', as that nonsense science will only undervalue the Solid Energy assets. Empirical science is a scam. These scientists don't really understand their methodology. Such is the quality of public education. The biggest problem is the lack of critical thinking taught in our schools - public or 'religious dogma' inspired private schools. Privatise public schools by all means - but first discover rationality.

References

[i] “Government’s sell off-firms are top performers” by Adam Bennett, NZ Herald, website, Jan 5, 2012.

[ii] “Government’s sell off-firms are top performers” by Adam Bennett, NZ Herald, website, Jan 5, 2012.

[iv] “Government’s sell off-firms are top performers” by Adam Bennett, NZ Herald, website, Jan 5, 2012.

[vi] “Government’s sell off-firms are top performers” by Adam Bennett, NZ Herald, website, Jan 5, 2012.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ 2011 election - dirtiest election ever?

2011-11-17T02:29:00.000-08:00

This article and the hounding that NZ Herald and other journalists are giving to the National Party and ACT Party highlights the extent to which the media are interfering in the NZ election. This would have to be the most corrupted election I've seen since President Arroyo was caught in a 'real tape scandal', where President Arroyo stands accused of benefiting from election bribing. This issue is currently being investigated in the Philippines. But back to the 3rd world:

1. Labour and Greens are trying to discredit the National Party and ACT Party because of their 'private conversation'. Nothing controversial was said except they referred to NZ First Party supporters as dying out; hehe funny 'private' joke, and the imminent resignation of Don Brash. Oh, and surprise surprise, Winston Peters is expounding the fact that Catherine Isaacs is being vetted by Key as the new leader. Should that surprise anyone? She is has 2nd ranking on the party list Winston. Winston Peters discredited himself here.

2. Greens Party people are caught sabotaging National Party billboards; and many in the party are supporting the action, saying party supporters would have welcome the moves. Yes, I guess because a chick is being unfairly treated, we ought to break the law indulgently. You'd think the media would be more interested in this story, but they are more interested in tarnishing the reputation of John Key. I don't much like John Key's pragmatism, but I think his credibility stands up a great deal better than the Green's ideology. Yet there is nothing in the media; and far from two people (John Key and John Banks) being scandalised for a harmless 'private' conversation, we have 50+ Greenies defacing billboards, and members unapologetic for the action, and the media doesn't think this story is newsworthy. Wow.

How biased can the media get. I hope the Elections NZ decide that the news media has tarnished the credibility of this election, and call upon the media to pay compensation, and for a new election to be held; hopefully in a new parallel universe where Don Brash is not ACT Party leader, so they can secure 15 seats! What a shocker!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

The misappropriation of political information

2011-11-15T10:37:00.000-08:00

The NZ Herald has attempted to defend its story by garnering the support of a 'victim' of the 'News of the World' scandal in the UK. The effort is rather pathetic. Consider the lawyers arguments:

Barrister Mark Lewis said “The "teapot tape" should be released and is in no way comparable to the News of the World scandal”.[i]

Really? In no way the same? Not even a little? They occurred on the same planet? They involved taped conversations between known parties; journalists with a personal interest in the activities.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The News of the World were really using what is lazy journalism - they were hacking people's phones to get cheap stories".[ii]

What difference does it make whether the journalists were lazy or deliberate in their activities. The issue is not whether they tried to record the incident; the issue is whether they are attempting to profit from it after the fact.

The fact that these politicians made parts of their conversations or the imagery pertaining to the conversation available or ‘public’ does not mean that every aspect of their life has to be exposed. The fact that the media asked for permission to publish the tapes is evidence enough of that.

“Mr Lewis said he believed it was in the public interest for the transcript of the tape to be released”.[iii]

How can he know if the releasing the tape is in the public interest without knowing the contents of the tape. Ethically, only the police can determine what is ethical or proper to do in this case, as well as the journalist and media executives who have viewed its contents. They will be morally and legally liable if they misuse the information. If there is any criminal content; this would not even necessarily justify release of the taped information, though I suggest it should in order to permit collaboration of evidence.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "There is a difference between the News of the World hacking into someone's phone to find out private information and seemingly - whether accidentally or on purpose - effectively a journalist investigating some kind of political statement”.[iv]

This barrister really has no concept of philosophy. There is a distinction to be made between private and public lives. i.e. You cannot plant video cameras in public toilets. That is the principle involved. Yes, hacking into someone’s private communication represents a higher level of deceit, but both actions are morally reprehensible. A barrister should know that.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "But if it's particularly a political statement which affects the future government or the ways to achieve future government in a country, then that's something in the public interest and it sounds like it should be reported without the unfavourable comparison to what was clearly a criminal act”. [v]

Well, that is fine if the content of the tape was public, or if the content which the media sought to publish was ‘public policy’, but they are after scandal. So it’s a big ‘if’ that this barrister has not even explored. Even if there is content which might be deemed ‘in the public interest’, that is for the owner of the private information to decide. Only if the evidence suggests illegality should this information go to the police; and otherwise there ought to be no publication without the intellectual property owners authorisation. It has been duly rejected by John Key.

Why a barrister is inclined to screw up on this point is that they fail to see the broader context of public accountability; which is a respect for principles. In a sense, the barrister is saying that we will discard principles for the right to affirm the public's interest....whatever that is. i.e. He is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

According to the NZ Herald,

“News Corp is trying to negotiate a settlement with the Dowlers and has offered them £2 million (NZ$3.9 million)”. [vi]

Barrister Mark Lewis’ comment on the John Key-John Banks tape recording therefore entails a ‘conflict of interest’, and I would suggest his inflaming the NZ political issue could well make him liable to legal action by the PM, John Banks, the ACT Party and the National Party. The conflict of interest arises because he is apparently trying to render his case as more serious, unique, and thus of greater significance. This would of course justify a greater pay-out for his client.

“Mr Lewis said there was a difference between taping the PM speaking about something which could be deemed "very crucial politically" and recording him talking about personal matters, like his health or his family”. [vii]

Actually there isn’t. If the media is so hungry for public policy so that the public can get to know their political candidates, then I’m sure there is no shortage of time available by them; particularly the minority candidates who seldom get much. The reality is that the media wants us to think there are some important sound-bites on here. Maybe there is some crude language or embarrassing comments about Don Brash. Maybe they even hint to the resignation of Don Brash after the election. These are private opinions; they are strategic concerns of the people who did not intend to make them public. The notion that a journalist can accidentally benefit from secret tapes is ridiculous, whether they intended to do it or not. It could only sponsor a raft of ‘disorganised crime’ or purposeless crime. i.e. Smuggling of drugs. Oh sorry, I did not know my BF planted drugs in my baggage, but since I did not know, its ok if I sell them in the destination country.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "If it's to do with how the country is governed then that's good journalism".[viii]

Actually its poor journalism because apparently the action was not deliberate, and the decisions since show poor moral judgement by all concerned.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "The public choose their politicians ... they really ought to know wherever they are in the world".[ix]

Nonsense. Politicians are not always public persons; they also have private lives, and it is the decision of the politician, not the media, to decide when it is public or private, or it can be determined from the context. Voters should only be interested in the public policies of politicians; the fact that they make private comments, etc is really of no importance because they are not well-considered, deliberate or analytical thoughts, as I am conveying here. If my analysis is flawed, then I can be rightly criticised for it. Some of my writing is less well-considered, and whilst I can be criticised for it, I hold myself to a lower standard for that. It is a question of context. I could care less that John Brash curses Don Brash in private or public; the issue is whether they are effective politicians. In that assessment, I do not think people should hold them to unreasonable standards, nor sanction the use of misappropriated information/property.

Mr Lewis suggests a better comparison would be with ‘former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's gaffe when a microphone he was wearing picked up his comments that Labour supporter Gillian Duffy was a "bigoted woman".[x]

Frankly, I actually think this is a similar situation. If the journalists intentionally released that information and they had good reason for believing they were private thoughts; then they ought not to publish it. If he was making those comments to specific people, as opposed to strangers, then that is private.

Barrister Mark Lewis: "Politicians need to be careful about TV cameras and microphones. They should watch out that things aren't recording". [xi]

Notwithstanding the practical value of anticipating ‘crouching tigers’, we would tend to argue that we do not live in a caveman society, but rather a conceptual society where we expect people to act in accordance with the law, and that the law will entail consonance with ethical principles and more importantly human nature. Where is the ethical principle that the victim is 100% responsible for the consequences of their actions and others actions.

“Mr Key said his police complaint was based on principle. "What happens when it moves to other high profile New Zealanders having a conversation with their wives about personal issues?” [xii]

This is a fair comparison, but the following ethical justification by John Key is not.

John Key: "What happens if a couple of high profile New Zealanders have a conversation about their son or their daughter being suicidal - a Sunday paper reports that and that child takes their own life. We're at the start of a slippery slope here and I for one am going to stand up and ask the police to investigate it".[xiii]

A defining quality of a “suicidal” people is that they have a propensity to commit suicide. John Key seems to be embarrassing a utilitarian or consequential or pragmatic conception of justice here – sadly. The issue is the means by which a person acquires the information. Certainly if the information was misappropriated and caused embarrassment, it could precipitate suicide. This might reasonable considered a ‘causal’ connection between the illegitimate action and the suicide.

References

[i] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[iv] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[v] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[vii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[viii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[ix] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[x] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xi] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

[xiii] “Prime Minister's 'cheap shot” by Amelia Wade, NZ Herald, website, Nov 16, 2011.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Speech by Don Bash - election 2011 campaign launch

2011-11-12T17:40:00.000-08:00

Don, I took the opportunity to identify the problems I have with your recent speech. You have my partial support…sadly not my vote since I don’t vote..since I don’t sanction the process.

On 13 November 2011 12:00, Don Brash wrote:

ACT: THE RIGHT PARTNER FOR THE JOHN KEY GOVERNMENT

AN ADDRESS BY DON BRASH, LEADER

ACT 2011 CAMPAIGN LAUNCH

13 NOVEMBER 2011

Ladies and gentlemen,

New Zealand needs ACT! New Zealand’s a wonderful country.

Blah blah blah…you should try Australia…Kiwis love it J too

We live in a country which is bigger than Britain, with more natural resources per person than almost any other country on Earth.

A country which has more fresh water per person than almost any other country on the planet.

I would have noted the oil & gas potential, quite startling for a country of 4million people. Basically NZ has an offshore basin the size of Europe. Other than that there is the titanomagnetites of West Coast Nth Island and Southland lignitic coal, there is not much mineral wealth really aside from the oil potential. Yes, NZ has farming, a great climate and water supply, but not a startling benefit. The lack of development of oil & gas is due to isolation and lack of political support.

A country which gave women the vote before any other country, and has one of the oldest democracies in the world.

Democracy is not such a triumph...after all its engrossed us in the current problems. You should be canvassing a meritocratic democracy.

A country where we can say with certainty that, no matter how vigorously we disagree with each other about politics, nobody will get shot, or beaten to death, in political turmoil.

Yeh, but crime rates are not impressive, and economic based injustice (i.e. bank fees, currently the basis of a common law action in Australia) are real rproblems, not to mention state-sanctioned systematic statutory abuses. i.e. Punitive, arbitrary laws.

A country which has produced Ed Hillary, and Kiri Te Kanawa, and Kate Sheppard, and Katherine Mansfield, and Jean Batten, and Apirana Ngata, and Bill Buckley, and Angus Tait, and Bill Gallagher, and Ernest Rutherford – a man ranked by some as close to Newton and Einstein in terms of his contribution to our understanding of physics.

Not so impressive...might get you votes though.

It is a wonderful country.

But ladies and gentlemen, this country is at risk. Far too many people are finding it hard to make ends meet. Far too many young people can’t get a job. Far too many people fill our jails. Far too many children are poorly fed and poorly housed. Far too many families break down in acrimony and violence. Far too many young people come out of school unable to read and write. Far too many working age adults languish on a hand-out. Far too many towns and cities spew untreated waste into our once-clean streams and rivers.

And to a large extent these are the social costs of the under-performance of our economy. Once, we were one of the richest countries in the world. Our productivity was up with the best.

One has to acknowledge that a collapse in commodities was party to blame - it hit Australia too.

But then we were hit by the loss of our best export market, and by the disastrous policy response to that. By 1984, New Zealand was on the verge of bankruptcy. We were rescued by Sir Roger Douglas, the Minister of Finance who went on to found the ACT Party, and for more than 10 years productivity started growing strongly again.

This seems somewhat controversial; and not supported by evidence, as NZ does not seem to have gone on to create any great industries in this time. I suggest you need to argue this point, i.e. Arguing that minimum wages were an obstacle, if they were?? Do they pre-date this period, etc.

But when Winston Peters became the Treasurer in 1996, and even worse when Helen Clark became Prime Minister in 1999, the momentum ended.

She introduced the envy tax for those on higher incomes; she reversed many of the labour market reforms; she introduced legislation giving local authorities the power to do whatever they wished; and she massively increased government spending towards the end of her reign – an increase which set up the years of deficit since 2009.

Today, the Government is borrowing hand over fist; $20 billion in the last year, hundreds of millions of dollars every week, the equivalent of hundreds of dollars a week for every household.

Govt is borrowing $20bil - is this not misleading because its because of the earthquake relief. Otherwise its mostly private debt. Govt debt is not so bad I seem to recall. Not bad for a farm commodity producer with a lot of oil potential.

Productivity growth has fallen away – to an estimated 1% annually according to the Reserve Bank.

Yep...NZ workers have a sense of 'lifestyle' entitlement. A country with few resources other than oil 'potential', and you have to rely on labour, like Singapore, then you need a new education system. But you really need a new political system, and NZ, being the first to adopt women voting, ought to be the first. It has the legal framework best suited for change. It could lead the world.

Despite the best export prices in a generation and weak import demand, the balance of payments is still in deficit – with that deficit projected to increase over the next few years. And as a result our debt to the rest of the world gets bigger, year by year – not yet at Greek or Spanish levels, but damned uncomfortable just the same.

Agreed.

Two credit rating agencies have downgraded us, and as a former Governor of the Reserve Bank I know that that’s an ominous sign.

The IMF projects growth in per capita income over the decade to 2016 to be half the growth they project for Australia over the same period. In fact, 148 countries are expected to grow faster than we will over that period. We would have been in a state of national mourning if even one other country had beaten us at rugby – we seem relaxed at being 149th in the economic growth stakes!

The gap between incomes here and incomes across the Tasman continues to grow. When National came to power, the gap was 35%; now it’s closer to 40%. As a result, New Zealanders leave in ever-increasing numbers; nearly 300,000 over the last decade.

Not realistic comparison. Can I suggest comparing NZ with South Australia. Even then, wage levels in Sth Aust will be set by Australian context. Like NZ, Sth Australia is probably depopulating, except it might have turned around with the commodities recovery and mining boom. The lesson for NZ is that Sth Australia spent $25mil on a Mineral Discovery Program - geophysics across the entire state. This is why resource development is key to retaining population growth in NZ. NZ needs a $50mil geophysics program to test offshore areas. Set up a state oil enterprise; do the work, then farm out the most prospective areas to foreign companies on 'market terms', then sell off the enterprise to NZ'ers.

Just last week, the Herald on Sunday wrote of the Kiwi families living in Australia but longing to come home. Couples like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, with three New Zealand-born sons – longing to return to New Zealand, but feeling unable to do so because Adrian makes three times the salary in Australia that he could make in New Zealand, thus enabling Jules to stay home with her four children.

A survey of 4,000 13-year-olds recently found that an astonishing 27% of them wanted to leave New Zealand permanently when they were old enough to do so.

Dealing with this challenge should be the dominant theme in the election campaign – but it’s not. The serious danger is that we could reach a tipping point, the point at which so many New Zealanders have left that it becomes a cumulative process, with each new departure easier to justify than the last one. Some suggest we may already have reached that point.

At this critical time in our country’s life, voters face a stark choice: do they want a centre-left government headed by Phil Goff or do they want a centre-right government headed by John Key? There are no other options available.

Hang on - aren't you a 3rd choice?

We in the ACT Party are in no doubt at all about which of these two men offers the better prospect for our great country, and we have already declared publicly that we will give Confidence and Supply to a John Key-led Government.

Hmmm...after having bagged him out.

The Labour Party is advocating policies which nobody who cares for our long-term future could support – massively more borrowing than even National proposes; employment legislation which would see a return to the industrial mayhem which prevailed before 1991; a $15 minimum wage which would lead quite directly to more unemployment; an end to the 90-day trial period in employment contracts; a capital gains tax; a big increase in the compliance costs imposed on small businesses because of the exemption of fruit and vegetables from GST; a huge increase in the costs of the farming sector as a result of bringing biological emissions into the ETS in 2013; and an instruction to the Reserve Bank to stop worrying about inflation and start focusing on the exchange rate. This is crazy stuff.

Why is a capital gains tax a bad thing given your arguments about the deficit? You might ask whether now, a sustained recession, is the time to adopt tax cuts. Relying on private sector stimulus at a time of recession does not strike me as sensible, i.e. When you – Don Brash - were RB governor (2002) was the time for this. Opportunity lost now.

As an aside, I understand as well as anybody the problem which big swings in the exchange rate cause for exporters. I spent almost 14 years of my life trying to reduce those big swings. Alas, there are no easy ways to eliminate them, not at least if keeping inflation under control is also an objective. The Labour Party pretended they knew what to do about this issue in 1999, when they were campaigning to win the election in that year, and promised to have the whole Reserve Bank framework put under a microscope. When they won the election, they duly appointed a monetary policy expert from Sweden to do exactly that, and after months of study, the expert declared the New Zealand monetary policy framework world’s best practice.

It may sound good to exporters for Labour to say that they will smooth out those exchange rate fluctuations and keep inflation under control: believe me, no central bank has yet discovered how to do that.

So there’s not the slightest chance that ACT could support Labour after the election.

But like many others, we want a John Key-led Government to deal more decisively with the challenges which our country faces than has been the case over the last three years.

The Government has introduced National Standards in the school system, and some of our schools are world class. But far too many young people are coming out of 10 or 12 years of school barely literate. Parents who scrimp and save to send their children to independent schools are forced to pay twice for the privilege, once through taxation and a second time through school fees. The school system remains highly centralised – with a centralised curriculum, and a centralised and bureaucratic remuneration system.

There has been a pleasing reduction in violent crime in the last three years, and the ACT Party can take some of the credit for that – we supported National in increasing police numbers, especially in South Auckland, and we were responsible for getting the Three Strikes legislation passed, so that repeat violent and sexual offenders spend longer in jail.

This is not social policy; its repression. Discipline is not education.

But there is still far too much senseless violence, and too often the police prosecute the victim of that crime, as when Virender Singh was prosecuted a year or so ago when he tried to defend himself with a hockey stick while being attacked by five drunken youths.

Right now, the world economy is looking more ominous than at any time in my life-time. I spent a few days visiting London and Washington late last month to get a first-hand picture of just how bad things might get. I came home deeply worried – the Eurozone is in serious trouble because of irresponsible government spending in the countries of southern Europe; the United Kingdom and the United States are struggling under massive government deficits; and Japan seems unable to get to grips with its own massive government debt. The scope for the world economy to endure a prolonged and deep recession is all too evident.

Good argument to make.

In this threatening global environment, we believe the Government needs to urgently focus its spending on those who most need it, to flatten and reduce taxes in order to encourage investment, and to radically reduce the bureaucracy which makes life so miserable for homeowners, farmers, and manufacturers – indeed, for anybody wanting to do something!

Acknowledging that you are in a recession but not recognising that private investment is not going to fly is unrealistic. Why can't you 'contextually' validate the concerns of Labour for the plight of those who have lost their jobs or in long term unemployment, and to offer 'conditional support' for those on welfare, so they don't just stay on welfare...so they become ACT Supporters. i.e. Don't assume that people on welfare are happy on welfare. The problem is that you guys peddle a false dichotomy - harsh vs soft. There is a contextual, principled position. Call it the 'third way'. But its not a compromise; its just contextual, so realistic, as opposed to detached dogmatism or over-simplistic rationalism.

Realistically, ACT is the only party which can help National do what John Key and the rest of the Cabinet know needs to be done. And Friday’s “cup of tea” shows clearly that John Key knows that.

You will not impact on John Key unless you are able to increase your vote, and that requires differentiating yourself from NP. John Key will not achieve anything. He is a pragmatist. He lacks the intellect. NP-ACT = 3more years of what we just had, with a NP scared to act. All the most surprising when you have a wolly like Phil Goff in opposition. Utterly clueless. But it is a recession, so you need to be empathetic....not detached. There is value in cutting costs in this period, but not at the expense of demand. Refine rather than cut. i.e. Better education policy.

Over the last three years, ACT has ensured stable centre-right government – indeed, we enabled John Key to announce that he was in a position to form a government on the night of the last election, because we had pledged support to National in advance, as we have done again.

Again and again, we supported National Party-initiated legislation when without our support legislation would have failed.

Unconditionally? Are you saying that you are just a patsy for the NP? Because the electorate might punish you if this is the implication; most particularly if that is their perception, or you are telling them so. i.e. To punish the electoral system. This statement is a particular concern with the MMP up for debate. Don, sometimes I think you could not have done a better job of destroying the ACT Party. We'll see. Is John Banks the final kick in the teeth? We'll see.

We gave voice to widespread public concern about the Anti-Smacking law, the Marine and Coastal Area Act, and the Emissions Trading Scheme, though ultimately in vain.

Yep, we need access to oil. ETS is a tax scam...unsupported by good science. Too much political influence...helps to cite arguments.

http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/2296-flawed-climategate-inquiries-failed-to-restore-confidence-in-uk-climate-science.html . Nothing wrong with the Anti-Smacking idea in principle, just wrong execution.

We can claim much of the credit for the retention of the right to silence in criminal cases.

And as I’ve mentioned, as a result of our initiative, the Three Strikes legislation was passed. As a result of our initiative, students are no longer obliged to join a union. As a result of our initiative, the Productivity Commission was set up. As a result of our initiative, the 2025 Taskforce was set up, and the National Party committed to promoting policies which would close the income gap with Australia by 2025. (National doesn’t talk about closing that gap much anymore, because they know they don’t have a plan to close it. ACT does!)

Well, its hard to close a gap during a recession; who is spending money. So not fair to beat them up for no efforts now; but yes with respect to Helen Clark.

So we’ve shown we can work with National, and can deliver positive benefits for New Zealand. But much remains to be done.

Indeed.

In the last few weeks, National has gone some way towards policies which we strongly support by proposing quite far-reaching welfare reform, some useful changes in employment law, and some steps in the right direction in enabling employers to take on teenagers at less than the adult minimum wage. They’ve even made some tentative suggestions for reforming the Resource Management Act. We support all these moves – as far as they go.

But let me set out what we would like to achieve in the next Parliament.

There are nine policy areas we’ll be looking to work with National on to improve the lives of all New Zealanders, and perhaps especially those New Zealanders whom the major parties seem to have forgotten – those who struggle to keep small and entrepreneurial businesses alive, the farmers and those who provide services in rural communities, the self-employed taxi drivers and dairy owners (for whom earning even $13 an hour for the hours worked seems a distant dream), those struggling to cope with the burden of bureaucratic officials and senseless red-tape.

Pass Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and Regulatory Standards Bill

1) First, we want to ensure that the two Bills introduced by Rodney Hide in the last Parliament are passed into law – namely the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill.

The Spending Cap Bill would not require any reduction in government spending – indeed, it would explicitly allow government spending to increase as our population grows and as prices rise, and it would allow for a complete exemption from the cap to deal with a national emergency, such as the Christchurch earthquakes – but it would prevent future governments engaging in the kind of grossly irresponsible electoral bribes which the Clark Government undertook in the last three years of that Government’s life. For this reason, we believe its passage is well overdue.

Similarly, the Regulatory Standards Bill – opposed by most government departments and supported by most people in the private sector – would raise the bar on new legislation and regulation to the considerable benefit of everybody.

Only a party vote for ACT will get these two fundamentally important pieces of legislation passed into law!

The problem with this is that its arbitrary and context dropping. What if there was another earthquake - this time in Auckland. What about a war?

Reduce government spending relative to the size of the economy to enable radical tax reduction, and a lower exchange rate

2) Second, we will be pushing for a faster reduction in government spending – relative to the size of the economy – than that currently envisaged. At the moment, government spending is a larger share of the total economy than in any year of the last Labour Government. And yet there are a number of spending programmes which National criticised strongly when in Opposition but which remain untouched – programmes which have little or no merit in terms of any concept of social justice.

Getting spending under control more quickly would have three important benefits.

It would hasten the day when we’re no longer borrowing from our children to make life more enjoyable for ourselves.

It would enable tax rates to be reduced and flattened. We’re especially keen to get the company tax rate reduced – that’s vitally important if we’re to see a strong increase in investment in New Zealand. Yes, our company tax rate was reduced last year, but taken together with the change in depreciation allowances the overall effect was to increase the effective corporate tax rate. In any event, our company tax rate remains at 28%. That in fast-growing Singapore and Hong Kong is only 17%.

By how much could tax rates be reduced? The 2025 Taskforce showed that, if government spending could be reduced to the same share of GDP that it was in 2005, at the end of Labour’s second three-year term in office, then the top personal tax rate and the company tax rate could both be reduced to 20%. I’m not confident that that’s still possible, but a radical reduction of both rates could certainly be achieved.

Because of the crucial need to raise wages and salaries by increasing investment, we favour accepting that there will need to be an ongoing gap between the company rate and the top personal rate (as there is currently) by introducing a radically lower company tax rate at 12.5%, with the top personal rate as low as revenue will allow, perhaps 25%. We don’t doubt that that would have a very dramatic effect on investment, and therefore on wages, salaries and jobs.

Another substantial benefit of getting government spending reduced more quickly is that it would help reduce the exchange rate – vitally important if farmers and other exporters are to generate the strong growth in exports that our high level of overseas debt demands.

This is partly because much of the borrowing being undertaken by the government is being done by selling bonds to foreigners – and of course those foreigners have to buy New Zealand dollars to buy the government bonds.

It’s also partly because tighter restraint on government spending would almost inevitably prompt the Reserve Bank to further reduce the Official Cash Rate, and that too would reduce the upward pressure on the exchange rate. Yes, the OCR is lower now than at any time in our history, but it’s also higher than in any other developed country except Australia. There can’t be much doubt that if the OCR were, say, 1% rather than 2.5%, the exchange rate would be lower and export growth would be stronger.

Only a party vote for ACT will get government spending back under control quickly, and take the pressure off exporters!

You cannot expect to retain people in NZ if you start cutting spending - you need to find more productive ways of employing them. You need to live as effectively through this recession as possible. I would suggest your best bet is farm stimulus and oil & gas stimulus...that is where NZ spending has to go to displace any cuts you make. You will be sending NZ public servants to Australia. Australia loves big govt.

Radically reduce bureaucracy

3) Third, we will be pushing for a strong attack on bureaucracy. And by that we don’t simply mean a reduction in the number of bureaucrats, though that would no doubt be part of it. We mean taking an axe to some of the more ridiculous rules and regulations which those bureaucrats enforce:

· The rule which enables Auckland Council planners to tell a home-owner to paint her white house black or brown because it’s near the Kaipara;

· The rule which requires a retailer of farming equipment in Masterton to get approval before erecting a sign on his own property;

· The rule which requires a farmer to get approval before building a hay-barn on his own property;

· The rule which enables local authority planners to designate a farm as having outstanding landscape value, without any suggestion of compensation for the loss of value which that designation involves;

· The rule which requires a farmer to get a building consent to replace his home after it’s burnt down;

· The law which enables local authorities to tightly constrain the supply of land, with disastrous consequences for housing affordability for most young New Zealanders.

Fixing these frustrating and expensive rules would almost certainly require a fundamental reform of both the RMA and the Local Government Act, and quite possibly an amendment to the Bill of Rights Act to ensure that the right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s own property is enshrined in law.

Only a party vote for ACT will make a serious dent in the inane bureaucratic rules which cost us a fortune and ruin our lives!

Take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme

Agreed, but that means taking an axe to the science. There is a James Cook University (impartial Australian) academic who is your man! Start attacking the science. This ought to be a big issue for you. You should be getting out there on this issue. There is a lot of cynicism about climate change, and a great way of winning NP votes, and Green conversion to NP votes.

4) Fourth, we also want to take an axe to the Emissions Trading Scheme. Whatever you believe about the causes of climate change, it makes no sense at all for New Zealand, producing just 0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, to have the only all sectors, all gasses, ETS in the world.

No other country penalises farming for its production of greenhouse gases, and yet that is a major part of the ETS in New Zealand.

Yes, National proposes to defer the inclusion of agriculture into our ETS until 2015; Labour proposes to include it from 2013.

Key will not support it; he just knows that the evidence is fake, but wants the Gillard govt to quit first.

But even now agriculture is hurt by the effect of the ETS on the price of electricity, petrol, diesel, and coal. If biological emissions were to be included in the ETS on the basis proposed by the Labour Party, it would have an absolutely devastating effect on the viability of a great many farms. Even the deferment proposed by the National Party would at best leave farmers paying thousands of dollars for their use of on- and off-farm energy. New Zealand’s farming sector – the most efficient producer of food in the world – doesn’t deserve that kind of punishment.

Indeed, there’s a strong argument that biological emissions don’t add to greenhouse gases at all: every unit of carbon emitted by pastures, crops and animals was first absorbed from the atmosphere.

Only a party vote for ACT can protect farmers – and the rest of us – from the ETS!

Give parents effective control over their children’s education

This is good policy. But I think you need to make the argument for it. Wish I could help on this issue, as I'm currently writing a book on parenting.

5) Fifth, we want taxpayer funding to “follow the child”, to give parents an opportunity to send their children to any school willing to take them, as already happens with Early Childhood Education. This would enable parents to send their child to an independent school if that was their preference, or to an “integrated school”.

And to enable parents to make an informed choice about which school is best suited to their child, we would open up SchoolSMART, a website run by the Ministry of Education which holds information about schools, about pupils’ performance, about teacher performance and about other indicators. National once campaigned to make this information available to parents. In Government, they haven’t done it.

Hmm...sounds nice but actually I'm not a fan of this approach to performance enhancement because it drops the context in which teachers perform. Stick with your policy above with greater autonomy for principals and let the principals deal with the issue.

We would recognise long-established and well run state schools, such as Auckland Grammar, Epsom Girls, McLean’s College, Rangitoto College, Wellington College and Christchurch Boys High School, as “trust schools”, and allow them to operate substantially free from bureaucratic control – including giving them the ability to establish other campuses, perhaps by acquiring schools which might be losing pupils.

Only a party vote for ACT will give parents a chance to choose the school which best suits their child, and boards of trustees and principals a chance to run their schools free from the stifling hand of Wellington bureaucrats!

Promote a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation

6) Sixth, we will push for a multi-party consensus on changes to New Zealand Superannuation to ensure its long-term viability as our population gradually ages.

I have utter sympathy for NZ'ers - there are few opportunities to make money here as there is no market size or growth. Expand the swimming pool so bigger and more fish can grow. I think the only way to get NZ'ers to save is to give them easier access to the Australian market place. My suggestion is that NZ needs to:

1. Facilitate easier access to the Australian market place for NZ investment, i.e. Allow NZ'ers to invest in Australia's economic success, as well as allow NZ companies to raise money in Aust easily.

2. Offset this lost domestic investment by facilitating greater foreign investment in NZ, i.e. Like with my oil investment initiative.

The Labour Party has recently announced their support for a gradual increase in the age of eligibility, as we proposed months ago. They’ve adopted the proposal of the Retirement Commissioner, which would see the age of eligibility reach 67 by 2033.

We think that that’s too slow, not affecting in any material way the baby boomer generation.

The Australian Labor Government has announced that the age at which Australians will become eligible for their taxpayer-funded pension scheme will reach 67 by 2023, 10 years earlier than the Labour Party has proposed here.

But whether by 2023 or 2033, this issue needs to be put on the agenda. Most other developed countries are gradually increasing the age at which their citizens become eligible for taxpayer-funded retirement income, and for the same reason. We’re all living longer. It’s totally irresponsible to pretend that no increase will be needed.

Only a party vote for ACT will ensure that this issue is addressed in a timely way!

Promote a safer, more secure, society

7) Seventh, we will push to make New Zealand a safer and fairer place by ensuring that the victims of crime are not subject to unfair scrutiny by the police when they try to defend themselves, and ensuring that young offenders are appropriately dealt with before their criminal activities escalate.

The statute books already entitle people to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property. But in practice it’s all too common for the police to charge people who defend themselves – in other words, for the police to treat victims as criminals.

I mentioned the case of Virender Singh a moment ago. I could have mentioned the case of Greg Carvell, charged with shooting and wounding an intruder who was threatening him and two of his staff with a machete. Or the case of Paul McIntyre, charged with shooting and wounding one of three men who were trying to steal his property in a remote location in the dead of night. There have been far too many similar cases.

While clearly the use of force in defence of person and property must be reasonable – it would clearly be absurd to use lethal force against a teenager retrieving a ball from your front lawn – the present policy needs to change. We believe there’d be merit in enshrining the right to self-defence in the Bill of Rights Act.

In respect of youth offending, there’s a lot of evidence that to the extent young people get away with minor offending, there’s an increased chance of their engaging in further and more serious offending. We will ensure that all young people know that breaking the law has consequences, in order to ensure our young people stay on the straight and narrow. Ensuring that young people receive a decent education, and can find a job when they need one, will also help keep young people out of trouble.

This is too simplistic policy. Strikes one as behaviourism…anti-intellectual.

Only a party vote for ACT will protect your right to self defence, and make it clear to our young people that every crime has a consequence!

Push for equal legal status for all New Zealanders, irrespective of race

8) Our eighth agenda item is to give effective force to Article III of the Treaty of Waitangi – the clause which asserts that all New Zealanders have equal status at law. We reject the notion that the Treaty established a “partnership” between “the Crown” (on behalf of all New Zealanders) and a subset of New Zealanders defined by their ancestry. If Article III is taken seriously, it leaves no room for separate Maori electorates in Parliament, no room for Maori wards in local government, and no room for requiring consultation with Maori over and above the obligation to consult with any other New Zealander.

Agreed, but you are a long way from displaying empathy for Maoris. I think you need to acknowledge the failings of prior policy. There is a great deal which can be validated or acknowledged about the Maori position. Not good engagement on this issue.

We believe that, except where already in private ownership, the foreshore and seabed should belong to the Crown, on behalf of all New Zealanders. Because we are a party which believes in the rule of law, and in particular the right of all New Zealanders to have access to the courts, we also believe that those who think they have a customary right to certain parts of the foreshore should be allowed to have their claims tested in court. And we mean tested in court: we don’t regard negotiating such claims with a minister, within an intensely political environment where Parliamentary votes are at stake, as at all a substitute.

Agreed.

We favour the enactment of a simple piece of legislation providing that nothing in any statute or regulation, whether passed by Parliament or by any other regulation-making body, should confer any benefit, preferment or special status on anybody by reason of the ethnicity of that person.

Only a party vote for ACT will move New Zealand forward to a state where all New Zealanders – those of Maori ancestry, those of European ancestry, those of Asian ancestry, those of Pacific Island ancestry – all of us have equal rights under the law!

Don't you mean equal slaves? Very little mention about our system of govt; rights in this policy statement. Nothing about economic rights. What happen to libertarianism? I thought there were principles? Or are we getting direct inspiration from God these days. Ok, that's on the ACT website. You ought to refer to it, as National Party have a pretty empty framework.

Re-establish a constructive relationship with Fiji

9) Finally, we will push to rebuild our relationship with Fiji.

The ACT Party has long been in broad agreement with the thrust of New Zealand’s foreign policy: in particular, we favour the drive for building new relationships with China, India and other emerging countries in Asia, and for working hard to bring the Trans Pacific Partnership to a successful conclusion. We have supported the Government in its determination to fulfill New Zealand’s commitments in Afghanistan until next April. We continue to regard a close relationship with Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada as fundamental to our security.

But we’ve come to the conclusion after extensive talks with Fijians now living in New Zealand, and New Zealanders with long experience in the Pacific, that our present policy of holding the Bainimarama regime at arm’s length is not working for New Zealand or for Fiji.

Fiji has long been family: many New Zealanders holiday there and a significant number have business interests there. Many New Zealanders were born there.

We need to rebuild a positive relationship with that country – encouraging the regime towards its professed aim of building a vibrant colour-blind democracy, based on one vote one person.

Only a party vote for ACT will lead to a re-examination of our relationship with Fiji!

So there you have a summary statement – the ACT Plan for the next Parliamentary term if you like – setting out what we will be aiming to achieve in the next Parliament.

All of our policies are motivated by a concern for those New Zealanders who, like Adrian and Jules Paalvast, want to return to their homeland, but feel that they can’t do so in fairness to their children. And for those who still live in New Zealand but feel deeply torn between what this country has to offer and the much higher living standard which, for the foreseeable future, they could enjoy abroad.

And when we look at the policy positions being adopted by other potential partners of the National Party, we’re convinced that ACT is the most logical partner for National.

The parties of the left – Labour, Mana, Maori and Green parties – are in a competition over who can come up with the most economically irrational policies. They are in a race to increase the minimum wage – in the process, destroying jobs and consigning those they claim to represent to the unemployment benefit. So much for compassion!

Their other policies would be just as destructive. The Maori Party wants to exempt the first $25,000 of income from tax; to make teaching te reo compulsory in secondary schools; to scrap the 90 day probationary period; to write Treaty of Waitangi principles (whatever they are!) into employment law; and to give iwi a veto over foreign investment.

The Green Party wants to protect the environment, as of course we in ACT do also, but has a totally unworldly view of how economies work and has no understanding what a devastating impact on our living standards the implementation of their core policy platform would have. For a party that talks up their opposition to big business, they seem intent on delivering massive subsidies to big businesses that promise to create so-called “green jobs” – despite policies of that kind leading to massive job losses in countries such as Spain which have gone down that path.

Well, they might argue that you are unrealistic because they seem strong on issues which might prevent oil spills, i.e. Renunciation of oil exploration

By contrast, ACT shares much the same basic philosophy as the National Party – a belief in freedom, in individual responsibility, in limited government, in equal citizenship, a belief that New Zealanders’ lives would be better by having less government – less government taxation, less government spending, less government borrowing, less government bureaucracy. And we actually mean it!

Since when was 'limited govt' a principle? A lot of work needed here.

Of course, we have differences of opinion with National too. We want to see much more vigorous action to deal with our problems than National has felt able to deliver over the last three years.

But we haven’t the slightest doubt that we could again work constructively with National, to the benefit of all New Zealanders – high income and low income; young and old; urban and rural; Maori, Asian, Pacifika and European.

And that’s my message to all New Zealanders. ACT is the only party with the experience and the commitment which can help a John Key-led Government deal with the challenges which our country faces.

And those challenges are huge.

In a world getting tired of countries which can’t live within their means, we’re still borrowing like there is no tomorrow.

In a world where our people are getting steadily greyer, we’re not confronting the challenges posed by the increasing cost of New Zealand Super, of care for the aged, and of healthcare.

In a world where people find it easier and easier to move countries, we’re drifting off the pace, and seeing too many of our young people deciding to make a better life for themselves somewhere else.

A party vote for ACT at this election is your best way to ensure that we meet those challenges, for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

ENDS

Hugs and kisses Don....but room for improvement.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

NZ Referendum - your choice is MMP

2011-11-06T01:56:00.001-07:00

New Zealand's two largest parties are up to no good. A significant part of this 2011 election is a referendum on NZ's voting system. History has taught me how these referendums are misused. I am reminded of the Australian referendum on becoming a republic. Most people wanted to become a republic, but the government offered a choice no one wanted, so the Republic idea was voted down. In effect, John Howard, the Conservative, sabotaged the process.

In the case of the NZ referendum, both parties are being tight-lipped about their choice. Expect this to change after the referendum is held; and perhaps sooner, if they get a sense that the wind is blowing the wrong way. The Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system is the best system - and it ought to be kept for now. The only better approach would be a lower hurdle for getting elected, i..e Currently a party needs 5% of the national vote in order to get a list MP allocation, or a electorate seat. This is an unnecessary obstacle to representation, so I think the 5% hurdle should be lowered to 100/120=0.8%.

The MMP system is popular; and that is likely because people appreciate the appeal of having greater competition in parliament. The problem of course is that minor parties are not given the same airtime as the major candidates. There is no justifiable reason for this limitation, as it effectively means that the media defines which candidates are successful. In fact, minority candidates might have to adopt controversial positions in order to get media attention, and the implication of that is that they might be seen as 'extreme'....whatever that means? Extremely principled is a bad thing in a pragmatic political discourse based on extortion, i.e. The tyranny of the majority.

MMP is criticised for forcing the government into coalitions with minor parties, i.e. the need to negotiate with others. What a terrible outcome? Yes, the late Roger Kerr, head of the NZ Business Roundtable supported FPP; the system which sees a very popular Libertarian Party in the US lack any representation, despite strong support, which is forced to back conservatives or liberals. But Kerr is satisfied because it delivers 'decisive government'. Hitler was decisive. But business likes that; just as many churches and business executives liked Hitler until he started shooting people. But that's not extreme; because decisiveness is economically 'pragmatic'; well, except for the Jews and minority parties, whose interests are marginalised. What the other systems offer is more power to the major parties. This is bad because it means less accountability and less competition. It is true that minor parties can extort influence by holding the balance of power, however this is not the problem with MMP, but rather the folly of representative democracy which gives a moral sanction to the majority; and not to rational arguments, no matter who holds them. Yes, for centuries political parties have advanced the representative democratic system because it delivers arbitrary power to them. Perhaps that was the best they could do 500 years ago; but now we can do better...now we need a meritocratic approach to government. Now reason ought to be the standard of value; just like it 'kind of' is in our court system. The difference of course is that power should not be so centralised. Do that - and you will live through another political-economic revolution.

For more information on your voting choices see MMP system along with others indicated. My concern is that, even if you choose MMP in the referendum, the next government will have the power to 'tinker' with it. This could see you placed between a rock and a hard place, like they were in Australia, i.e. I can see how the government will try to raise the hurdle - maybe to 10%, to reduce the influence of the minor parties. Beware!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Buying & selling property in NZ - and the currency decision

2011-10-31T00:48:00.000-07:00

What is the outlook for the AUD:NZD? A pertinent question don't you think since so many Kiwis are looking to go to Australia? The press are of course trying really hard to convince New Zealanders to stay at home. Just like the churches they are presenting a lot of SCARY!! stories about Kiwis living on the poverty line in Australia.

Just in case anyone has forgotten. Australia is taking NZ's best workers, not its worst. Those on the poverty line are clearly people who didn't have a realistic sense of their own worth. This is not surprising of course. Australia is a competitive market, and NZ's are inclined to lack a good work ethic if they are not accustomed to living in a competitive market. i.e. A person coming from a country town, accustomed to spending 20 minutes talking to others at the local post-office will have an adjustment.

No, if you have useful skills, then you will find a place in Australia. The following chart suggests however that your chance to move your wealth over to Aussieland is quickly disappearing. The NZD seems destined to fall back to 0.68AUD in the next 6 months as the Australian economy regains strength.

NZD doldrums is of course good news for Aussies looking to buy property in NZ. NZ are eager sellers, whether to move to Australia, or because of the rural drift to the cities, or simply because the 'batch' is quickly turning into an investment nightmare. What is the rationale for living in NZ, or having a house here? Well, depending on where you buy, it could be easy an investment or lifestyle property. Land rates are padded with welfare here, i.e. $1800, so its best to factor that in. Retirement probably makes the most sense. There are many motels for sale or lease. My favourite locations are Rotorua, Wanganui and Nelson, and of course Queenstown if money is no issue.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Dialogue with Don Brash over central bank accountability

2011-10-19T14:09:00.000-07:00

This is a Facebook conversation I had with Don Brash, former Governor or the Reserve Bank of NZ, and former leader of the National Party on the current economic crisis.

Andrew Sheldon talks to Don Brash

Don, do you accept (or better still, have evidence to suggest) that governments (say the US or UK) are too cozy with bankers. When you look at how the US has bailed out the banks rather than plausibly supporting the creditors, might this point to an underhanded relationship between the two...for mutual (dubious, unenlightened) self-interest. And should not have the National Party have anticipated this crisis a decade ago...I know I did with a great many others. Why did NZ, Aust, Canada central bank governors allow it to go on... Perhaps you only want to speak for yourself? But perhaps you could also speak generally.

ADDENDUM: My criticism of US government fiscal and monetary policy extends back to 2000, however I only started blogging in 2005 – and continued my criticism.

Top of Form

Like · · October 11 at 2:46pm ·

Don Brash

Andrew, no, actually I don't think the US and UK governments have had too close a relationship with the banks. The reality is that the banks are at the very heart of the financial system - both the credit system and the payments system. The governments of the US and the UK (and of course of many other countries also) realised that the collapse of their banks would have had an impact on their whole economies which would have been utterly disastrous, so they bailed them out. Should they have regulated them more tightly to avoid the banks getting into trouble? Don't get me started! I blame the collapse of the banks in PART on the policies of some of the governments, in part on the greed and stupidity of some of the banks involved, and in part on the very tight system of regulation which actually led many people to assume taht the banks were effectively government guaranteed.

You ask why did NZ, Australian, and Canadian central bank governors "allow it to go on". I'm not sure I understand your question. The banks in those three countries are among the most robust in the world.

October 11 at 8:58pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon

By the last part of the question, I meant in terms of weighing into US, EU, Japanese govt policy decisions, an independent central bank believing that the substantive financial markets which underpin their demand have a substantive interest in 'sustained growth'. The policies of these govts have undermined global growth...that affects every economy. Say for NZ, does not the central bank have a mandate to preserve growth, thus weigh into international markets which affect their outlook?

October 11 at 9:05pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon I appreciate our banks are fine...more concerned with the broader economy, and the unsustainable interest rates which lured in home buyers, causing injury....not to mention the effects in equities.

October 11 at 9:06pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon We might reasonably expect the IMF to be independent...but sadly their role seems to be compromised by their need for OECD country funding

October 11 at 9:08pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon IMF says very little whilst 9 of 24(?) OECD countries have debts over 100% of GDP.

October 11 at 9:08pm · Like

Don Brash Not really fair Andrew. I've read plenty of IMF Papers which are highly critical of the enormous debts of many OECD countries.

October 11 at 9:19pm · Like

ADDENDUM: So does this reflect on the media’s lack of interest in bad news? Why might that be the case? It was very years ago to find a journalist offering critical views on the economic outlook. One of the few was Max Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of The Bulletin (Australia). Is the editorial content of the media skewed towards good economic news…even though there was a lot of critical economic analysis around from 2005-2008 outside of the mainstream media.

Andrew Sheldon

True, sovereignty lies with national govt...so what about central bank governors...what stops them from being more critical of foreign central banks and govts? They are independent from govt supposedly, so no embarrassment...just political integrity issue. i.e. Would Simon Power get a job with Westpac if he had an unfavourable Commerce Dept policy towards the banks....well, I know the answer because bank fees are a form of extortion...the basis of a class action in Australia as we speak.

October 11 at 9:46pm · Like

Don Brash Andrew, you are certainly right that central bank governors are reluctant to criticise other central bank governors. But who would you like Alan Bollard to criticise at the moment if you had your way?

October 14 at 9:20am · Like

Andrew Sheldon Ben Bernacke, ECB gov, all govts for adopting regulation which distorts rather than protects; for sanctioning extortion or 'numbers' rather rationality as the basis of political discourse.

October 14 at 9:49am · Like

Don Brash

Not sure that I understand your argument Andrew. To the extent that central banks are preoccupied with maintaining the value (purchasing power) of their own currency, I would have thought that most developed country central banks are doing OK at the moment (as measured by inflation, which is the only basis for assessing whether purchasing power is being maintained).

I share your concern that banking regulation may have actually contributed to some of the banking system problems, but central banks are certainly not the only ones (or even the main ones) to blame for the problems in the banking sector. In the US, for example, a lot of banking system problems stem from political pressures since at least the early nineties for banks to make loans to uncreditworthy, and marginally creditworthy, borrowers.

October 15 at 7:32am · Like

ADDENDUM 1: Actually, governments have a monopoly over the initiation of force. It was the Clinton administration who deregulated the banks in the USA; thus we ought to blame there for facilitating the actions of banks, which was largely acting ‘legally’ despite a few exceptions.

ADDENDUM 2: Actually, governments should be preserving a stable or fixed amount of currency relative to growth so that purchasing power actually increases. i.e. The amount of their wealth increases whilst the value of goods remains stable. We currently have ‘flat’ or ‘non-trending’ asset prices, no income growth, and rising product prices. i.e. We have inflation, i.e. Erosion of the real value of goods. It will not readily show up because govt masks the impact of the more volatile factors, i.e. rent, fuel, food,; arguing that they are too volatile to measure. True, but in the long run, they should not be ignored.

How can you be sure of that? How do you measure economic activity efficiently?

Andrew Sheldon

If central banks were duly concerned with preserving - or better still increasing purchasing power (as we live to progress I believe) - they would take measures which achieved maximum, but sustainable growth. Notwithstanding the fact they are confined to monetary policy, as an independent agency, there is no reason they cannot have an opinion on fiscal policy, and offer another element of accountability. Rather than debase their currencies, the US central bank lowered rates to extraordinarily low levels, govts like Aust subsidised great, Fannie Mae was instructed to offer the poor loans, creating a great deal of debt, and only in the last 3 years have we seen debasement of debt with quantitative easing...but there is more to come...causing more inflation. It’s about pushing the trauma into the future. If govt would only stop distorting the economy, each would be able to achieve growth of 8-12%...not the 1-3% we are accustomed to. The idea that we can only grow at these miniscule rates is because of govt...look at the Maritime Transport Act..calls to update it in 1998...its now 2011. It will happen now immediately after the election. Meantime priority 'distractions' for govt - aside from earthquake - rugby, seabed issue. One gets the notion, govt is about putting out fires, placing defensive.

October 15 at 8:13am · Like

Andrew Sheldon

Ultimately, I blame govt for being politicians rather than statesmen. They live within the system, lacking the ideas to change it. The problem is not the central banks per se its the govt which sanctions everything they do...its the idea that people really have any influence; that we have participation, choice?? We don't. We have a pretence of choice. We have a pretense of rationality within parliamentary debate...when really its a 'numbers' extortion game legitimatised by 'participation'. Tell me what participation I had in any piece of legislation. If I make a submission, what option do I have to hear criticism of my submission? None. How am I to know if it’s been read? Can't. There is a short range agenda to stay in power which means 'slow change' rather than selling ideas because our elected MPs have not developed a coherent philosophy before entering politics. I'd actually say you are better than most. But when or if you get substantive influence, you will become inaccessible, and centralised govt and universal suffrage will ensure you are motivated by the wrong priorities. You will become like the NP and Labour - 'constrained' by the system. Banks are custodians...they are not acting in accordance with their fiduciary duties; though you are right, govt requires no compliance from them. Another problem is the unconditional expropriation of wealth by taxation. Unless a voter has the right to renounce their sanction of govt by withholding tax, they are slaves. Representative democracy is slavery; we need a meritocracy where reason is the standard of value.

October 15 at 8:24am · Like

Don Brash

Andrew, I'm afraid I don't have time (and I'm not even in Parliament yet!) to reply to all your arguments. But let me just, in defence of my fellow central bankers, say that central bankers should not be increasing the purchasing power of their currencies (that would mean steadily average falling prices, or deflation). If money is to be used as a store of value, and as a measuring rod, it is important that it neither decreases in value (as with inflation) or increases in value (as with deflation). Most central bankers acknowledge that the only way in which they can help economic growth is by keeping the value of money stable, so that consumers and producers can use the price mechanism to inform their decisions. You obviously fear that successive rounds of quantitative easing will cause inflation. Yes, it may do, but it certainly hasn't done yet, and I strongly expect those central banks which have undertaken quantitative easing to reverse that process at the first sign of inflation.

ADDENDUM: Whose fault is that Don. You joined the ACT Party just 2 months ago, and his is the only opportunity I get to talk to you, and when the questions turn a little hairy, you evade them. That is govt; you don’t need to be a parliamentarian…you think like one merely as a candidate. You are over-qualified…that is the problem.

October 15 at 2:14pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon

Don, there is nothing inherently bad about increasing purchasing power; that is wealth creation. Yes, you can match the growth in money supply to productivity to stabilise prices, but that is not what the Fed Reserve has been doing. It has been stimulating debt levels with unsustainable low rates of interest....now there is a great deal of defaults, so debasement or recapitalisation is necessary to avoid default of that debts, say in USA, EU, etc. Mass transfer of wealth (via extortion). The poor suffer the most. Measures of inflation are entirely selective and arbitrary...just look at MS growth over productivity or economic growth.....to that you say, QE 'might cause inflation'? Ask yourself why QE is necessary at all? Why did asset prices rise so high? And how inflation is avoidable? Inflation will inevitably cause debt defaults among those not propped up. You seem to think there is no causal relationship between MS and productive capacity? It is true strong wealth creation in China and the developing world is offsetting OECD antics...but the relative distribution of capacity is going to create a productivity gap.

October 15 at 4:10pm · Like

Andrew Sheldon Don, the evidence does seem to suggest inflation ahead...this at a time of subdued confidence. Read this inflation news from the UK, and I've seen similar from Australia....

ADDENDUM: Don seems to have stopped talking to me; so because he is focused on getting higher profile attention, I thought I’d bring this to the attention of the media, because they love a controversy.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

How rich people waste their money

2011-10-17T12:57:00.000-07:00

Does NZ have the spare cash to throw around? Can't its millionaires find a more practical project to advancing science or achievement.

Take this recent announcement in the NZ Herald. Some Wellington property developer wants to build the fastest vehicle in the world - faster than the one already going 1200kmph, and yet still finding no practical application. Why do we need another vehicle going even faster if we cannot buy a 1200kmph vehicle? The chalenge is not speed; its unlikely efficiency, as I'm quite sure there is a market for any such craft, even if its only a tycoon's play thing.

Winning the World Cup Rugby will likely make NZ'ers feel proud; but will it make a difference to their lives? Was it their achievement? No? Will it give them greater courage to be an achiever? Not really? They should be able to make any achiever a role model, so the All Blacks are likely only inspiration for other rugby players.

I discourage people from funding such a project. Maybe the crew ought to actually pursue greater advancements than a mere speed increase; and besides the 'cashed up' Aussies are already have a year up on us, since they have similar plans. See Australian land speed record.

What would be a real advancement would be a jet-propelled boat that is sized to ride over waves at those types of speeds without actually touching them. I have no idea if it can actually be done; but that would be a practical application because we really have no need for land-based jet craft; unless we are going to stick them in tunnels. This would actually make sense in NZ - given its elongated shape. The problem of course is that it would be a pretty low-capacity and expensive infrastructure to develop because only one craft could use a segment of it at one time, and it would have to be >500km long in order to offer benefits. No, I suspect aviation is the proper place for speed records; not the confines of tunnels, nor the 'perfect land conditions' of some salt lake in Nevada. This is just a waste of money.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Rio Tinto out - the extortionists move in

2011-10-17T12:12:00.000-07:00

“Rio Tinto puts Tiwai Pt smelter on block” by Brian Fallow, NZ Herald, website, Oct 18, 2011.

This is an interesting move – Why is Rio Tinto selling off some of its aluminium assets? Zinc alloys more popular? Alumina reserves at Gove near exhaustion? Overpriced power in NZ due to a failed privatisation policy? Inability to build a hydro plant due to a poor regulatory regime?

NZ has the lowest average electricity generating cost in the world, but the mark-up of residential over industrial electricity prices is among the highest in the world. i.e. Higher than Japan or the Philippines. For an industrial company like Rio Tinto this is not usually a problem, as they have the financial muscle to build their own capacity. This is not so easy in NZ given the communities sensitivity to thermal energy. The National Party has said it is opposed to Helen Clark's policy of prohibiting new thermal power generation. The other problem is the structure of the electricity market. There is a very large resource of lignite in Southland...but clearly the National Party has created so much bad press about coal mining that I can't see Solid Energy having an easy time developing that resource. Its a very good lignite resource in fact...but there are other uses for this fuel, i.e. A Victorian university is developing a compressed fuel briquette.

Companies sell assets which are dogs or which are not a strategic mix because of their other asset mix or price outlook. Selling 1/3 of capacity means this is a strategic jettisoning of high-cost, low or no-growth capacity. That’s why its unstrategic. And yes, its hard to compete with China because it has subsidised electricity, and offers the cheapest conversion costs in the world….and I suspect there is large resources of alumina in Mongolia or Siberia….but that needs to be confirmed.

These assets are dogs....if you are an investor...do not buy them. NZ - if you want to avoid losing an export industry...think about electricity market restructuring. This will however bite into the govts hidden tax collection from privatisation....so it looks like these assets will probably be closed in years to come unless a 'mysterious' buyer emerges. The last ($500mil) upgrade to the NZ plant was in mid-1995, so the depreciated value of this asset must be close to zero....and this is a protracted recession.

The implication of this asset sale is - NZ will in about in 3-5 years have a spare 12% capacity surplus, so this means NZ generating assets are in many respects a dog for investors given that the country has bugger all industrial activity and population growth. Thus profitability will have to come from customer extortion. Trust me....you don't know how painful government can get. Consumer extortion in a small, stagnant market like NZ is the most lucrative way to make money; particularly if you function in a 'self-regulated' market.

The implication is - it would be silly for the NZ government to sell off its power assets for the next 5 years; and it would be silly for the NZ people to allow them to do it until they compel the Commerce Commission to fix the flaws in the NZ electricity market structure. The flaw is the structure of the market. With 70% essentially free hydro generating capacity, and electricity prices charged at the marginal price (set by thermal and wind capacity), NZ is paying the highest cost of electrcity, when there is actually very little demand. i.e. Why do generators need to charge so much - they don't need to build any more new (expensive) capacity. Prices are rising because executives cannot get bonuses until they can extort profits from residential consumers. This is why NZ needs an effective regulation system. Nothing about Labour, National, ACT or the Maoris give me reason to think any of them have the intellect to anticipate these issues.

Big business will realise....because they have smart analysts like me. Ok, not as good as me, but then few of them have as much respect for facts, nor have they studied philosophy, so public policy can be a 'no go' zone for them. Too much conflict. Morality...uuuhh!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com