Policies of National Party NZ

Share |

Looking at the values of the National Party NZ, it is apparent that John Key and his party are not big on principles. Its pure pragmatism. i.e. Try anything once, and if it works, try it again. This is just as anti-intellectual as the ACT Party of course, and it offers no clues as to which direction they are going in...which might explain why John Key has achieved very little. To be fair to him, there is little you can do when you have a high level of private and public sector debt, an embedded welfare mentality thanks to a decade of Labour administration (aka Helen Clark) and a weak global economy resulting is a strong NZD. My sympathies. So what is National's policy direction:

1. The National Party seeks a safe, prosperous and successful New Zealand that creates opportunities for all New Zealanders to reach their personal goals and dreams.

Hmmm...that has the Keyesian 'utopianism' stamped all over it. Safety? I guess they are not a Conservative Party then. Prosperous. How? Well, here are a few clues. They "believe this will be achieved by building a society based on the following values":

2. Loyalty to our country, its democratic principles and our Sovereign as Head of State

Its hard to imagine how nationalism is going to advance the nation. In actual fact nationalism has done a great deal to destroy democracies, because its a form of collectivism, i.e. A repudiation of the 'personal goals' they profess to subscribe to. Sadly they are committed to democracy, which is the contemporary system of extorting wealth from taxpayers, and legitimatising it with notions of 'mandates', the 'common good' and 'majoritism', which is no better than minorities directing your life, and incompatible with their values stated earlier.

3. National and personal security

This is of course personally sensible; but then in NZ was invaded by a group of people professing values of freedom, and a desire to free us from tyranny, I would be on their side.

4. Equal citizenship and equal opportunity

What precisely does equal citizenship mean? Well, rest assured its not equal 'rights', as if that concept would mean anything under National's. Might I suggest it means 'equal slavery' or 'equal suffrage', which is perfectly compatible with their conception. It doesn't suggest freedom, but then I never believed that pretense anyway.

5. Individual freedom and choice

Don't be fooled by this conception of freedom. Its not freedom from imposition; its the freedom from starvation 'unconditionally', i.e. Your freedom to impose on others freedom. This conception is perfectly compatible with National's tyranny. Choice? Well, you have the choice of a two-party majority. i.e. You have a choice of two types of poison, and there is a competition in name only. Both of the main parties are two sides of the same tyranny.

6. Personal responsibility

This is another empty statement because what does 'responsibility' entail? Does it mean being independent, or does it mean being more broadly supportive and responsible for your community. This is deliberately ambiguous. It highlights how much these parties are really trying to avoid any hint of 'ideology', or any desire to stand for anything. Basically they are scared to be labelled because they really stand for nothing, and are not able to defend anything. Its why you will never get any respect from politicians. They stand for nothing, they cannot convince you of anything, so they will only advance a program which gives them the opportunity to extort a position in the political market for themselves. Its a shallow existence of moral relativism; and democracy makes it possible. You ignorant forefathers asked universal suffrage, and they got it; universal slavery. I guess it was not the enfranchisement they wanted.

7. Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement

Its actually difficult to find any prospect of any of the major parties achieving this because none of them have the intellectual capacity to realise why they can't implement this objective. Basically there are 3 reasons:

a. They have no conception of the type of regulation they need. National wants to reduce or obstruct all regulation, and Labour is keen to add more. A distinction needs to be made between protective regulation and distortion. Where does that distinction arise? Well, its a matter of principle, and the major parties are against that, because they are against all 'ideology' which they could be held accountable for. Some of you might repudiate ideology as some 1950s-60s scourge. The reality is that those times were a unfair attack upon liberalism. It was really a disdain for bad ideology - Conservatism vs socialism. It was principles considered out of context.

b. Statutory imposition is not viable as a means of achieving policy objectives because statutory law is arbitrary; and thus it is out of context, so impossible to apply, i.e. Easy loopholed, requiring more amendments to actually catch offenders. Worse still, it actually gives 'offenders' a legal sanction, and causes a great expense to prosecute them through the courts, which you pay for.

c. Their 'moral ambivalence' actually encourages abuses of process which sanction the offenders and cause victimisation. Its no wonder people are cynical and begrudged by the process and want the 'necks of big business', but the reality is, the problem is caused by politicians, who function as salesmen, not moral authorities or statesmen like Thomas Jefferson. Those statesmen are long gone. Sadly, its their legacy which created this system.

8. Limited government

There is no question that National believe in limited government; the problem is they they don't limit it where it needs to be limited, and not in a way which would curtail its growth. The implication is that, by lacking principle, they will never reduce the size of government, nor offer any principled framework for constraining it, which means they pose a threat of escalating fascism, as community desperation growth.

9. Strong families and caring communities

Nice idea, but National does not actually convey a theory of values to actually enunciate what this entails. Let me guess - low crime, no divorces, good Christians who go to church and care for others. Sounds 'pretty', but it will not occur without mass or systematic repression. Japan is the clear example. You want the Japanese system. Well, in Japan people don't divorce because they are can't afford to. Its common for Japanese partners to stay together for functional reasons, not for love, and because they care too much about their reputation. They are so lacking in ambition or personal self-worth, that they live like ants, repudiating any personal sense of value. Caring in Japan? Its a pretense. They lock themselves in their houses to avoid the needy when they call. The US has far higher rates of charity. Its not part of Japanese culture at all.

10. Sustainable development of our environment

What does this mean? The devil is in the detail. There is ultimately no shortage of raw materials for humanity, or energy. We could invest in the technology now if it was a priority. Much fuss is made about resource exhaustion. Paradoxically, it is actually our political system that causes people to engage in such wanton materialism in several respects:

a. Psychological repression as a result of a political system which denies people intellectual engagement forces them to pursue material prosperity as a substitute.

b. Monetary and fiscal stimulus as a means of artificially 'sustaining growth' because they are unable to achieve real productivity gains without artificial means like stimulus and immigration.

c. Inefficient democratic government is the reason why our economy is only able to grow at 2-3% per annum, and is scarcely able to achieve any real productivity gains. The reason is that governments adopt more imposts through statutory law, that the only gains are from takeovers, economies of scale (i.e. population growth) and a little technological gain, i.e. Workers extorting the benefits in many cases, forcing business to engage in unfair market practices. You can see however how the constraints by government force workers and business into conflict, and government, the middleman is not held to account.

So, do I want a National-led government. Its probably the best possible choice of a terrible trio. I would repudiate them all and take to the streets. They are either dangerous or benign, but either way, they are a huge opportunity cost. Don't waste your life. Repudiate them all. Life is too precious. Next we review NZ's Labour Party.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Brash - ACT Party - needs to think more about implications

Share |

This was always going to be the problem elevating Don Brash to the position of leader of the ACT Party...he was always destined to be another unthinking libertarian as opposed to the philosophical type. I agree with his sentiment when he wants to drop the minimum wage. The problem is not that there is a minimum wage, but that its too high. i.e. It exists as a form of welfare support. The positive aspect about a minimum wage is that it avoids abuse; whether of immigrants, the disabled, or even the long term unemployed, who are not worth $1/day, but maybe they are worth $6-8/day in terms of the economic surplus they can produce; as opposed to sitting on welfare. Of course there are other ways to regulate these issues, but being a 'unthinking' type libertarian, there is tendency to detach oneself from the interests of people who have been raised under this system. Just as you don't turn your back on a 'spoilt child', you don't turn your back on a 'spoilt' welfare recipient. i.e. Your system created their welfare dependence; it serves no one to cut them off without reasonable conditional education to get them back to being productive persons.

These are however the right type of statements that Brash ought to be making, and they will resonate with farmers. But unless he pulls his finger out and considers the impact of government on these welfare abusers, then he is setting himself up for a fringe group of farmers, and he will not have a big impact. Don't think because you have a unthinking libertarian and an unthinking conservative deciding the fake of NZ that you will end up with good policy - you won't. You will merely end up with a compromise between two bad policies. The implication is that the context will be dropped.

Brash is making the same mistake - or will be perceived as making the same mistake - as the Sir Roger Douglas. It would not be an unreasonable expectation given that they come from the same party. The danger is that they will engage in their economic rationalisation and dispense with context. Call it rationalism, compartmentalisation or dogmatism; NZ'ers will snub them if they keep this up. They will get 3% of the vote instead of 10-20% they could if they were deeper thinkers. Well, maybe they have run out of time.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

John Key's speech to Australia moving but fallacious

Share |

John Key, PM of NZ believed a very moving speech to the Australian Parliament. It was this first such address by a NZ prime minister, and follows the speech by George Bush, as the visiting US President. With respect to its content however I must say:

1. Having lived in NZ that the values of NZ people are quite different. Not that its a problem; but it betrays the sentiments of the speech. Everyone likes to mention what we share. This of course betrays the facts, which also include differences. We actually have quite different histories. Shared aspirations? I don't think so. The only Australians going to NZ are those trying to escape a repressive government, and tourists wanting to check out what a real mountain and earthquake looks like. Most of the 560,000 NZ'ers in Australia came over for the money, even if they learned to live there.

2. The CER represents a 'global standard in free trade agreements'. Really? What about the apples Mr Key. NZ apples were restricted for trumped up scientific reasons...you know...the type used to justify climate/carbon taxes.

There are many positives about this speech. The sentiments are warm and welcoming; but sadly they are quite a stray from the facts and from principle. Most concerning is the sentiments expressed - that both countries are committed to freedom:

"That democracy, freedom and the rule of law should be cherished and fostered".

In the policies of both the Australian and NZ, trade aside, I see no evidence of freedom, and would argue that democracy is but a legitimatised form of fascism. Great speech lest we forget the facts.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Hone Harawira MP - ignorant or moral crusader

Share |

What are we to make of Hone Harawira's statements that Osama bin Laden was "a man who fought for the rights, the land and the freedom of his people".

The problem with these assertions is that they offer no clarity and are misleading. They show that the MP represents is ignorant, and assuming they know his values, that they share his ignorance. This is both a problem and an opportunity, because everyone is important to someone, and if we are respectful of the rights of people, then we should take an interest in what others think, and attempt to correct their assertions. This of course is more difficult if they lack a respect for facts. Here are the problems with what Hone Harawira's said:

1. Bin Laden did not advance the rights of Arabs; he exposed them to collectivist contempt, dangers of civil war.

2. Bin Laden did not convey an intellectual defence of rights, which are sadly lacking in the Middle East; instead deciding to attack a country which has one of the 'relatively' better track records. If his argument defence was that America was the better but offered a bad example, or was inconsistent, he did not make that 'intellectual argument'. He resorted to violence instead; misdirecting resentment in his own country.

3. Bin Laden might well have had some notion of rights, but it was not an objective or conceptual framework that entailed or required any intellectual discipline. His actions suggest his rights were won at the expense of others rights. Did the US model these values? Probably, as US foreign policy stinks as an educational tool. Listen to US politicians and you only get the sense that the US is out to advance its vested interests. We don't get any sense of intellectual or moral engagement; which is a problem in a crowded globe that requires respect and cooperation from others; particularly when 70% of global oil supplies comes from the region.

It is interesting that Harawira draws upon Maori culture, which I have little knowledge of, but which I would expect would be collectivist in nature. He said the al-Qaeda founder should be "honoured" rather than "damned" in death based on Maori values. It was Maori custom to acknowledge the dead. Other Maori politicians had a different perspective. These representatives clearly embody a higher degree of Western influence; leaving Harawira sitting out in the wilderness as a Maori nationalist.

Harawira said bin Laden had "pursued independence for his people, his family and his tribe". Unfortunately, his independent entailed destroying the lives of others. He needed to make an intellectual argument; but instead he resorted to violence.

He indicated it was Maori custom... "tributes to the dead are always appropriate"...that "it was custom for Maori to "honour and mourn the deceased".

This of course suggests unsurprisingly that Maori culture is based on moral relativism.

If there is any value in Harawira's statement it is in the acknowledgement that Bin Laden did embody some hope for Arabs in the Middle East, and he did change the nature of US engagement with the region.

The notion however that he advanced or "fought for the rights, the land and the freedom of his people" is a nonsense, because he showed no respect for rights...merely his countries interests at the expense of others. Sadly, the US did not help matters. They might well argue that its not in their narrowly defined interests to educate Arabs. They paid the price for their 'narrow' defined philosophy of pragmatism.

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples said 'utu' (revenge) was a Maori custom. "But we don't agree with the extent of the celebrations or with anyone celebrating the assassination of anyone and then the person's body being discarded into the sea."

Labour MP Shane Jones repudiates Harawira's view, arguing that: "In the old days, a great enemy - if he wasn't eaten - his bones were used to make musical instruments. So this romantic notion that in the old time, Maori spent hours of their time saluting the enemy was not the case".

This need not however be a repudiation, since Maori culture might differentiate the spirit from the body, and find some spiritual virtue in eating them.

His other argument however does repudiate his assertion; although, does all Maori beliefs have to be the same given the different tribes spread around the country. Jones argued "Enemies were turned to dust and people rejoiced, because of the suffering they had caused".

Source of quotes - "Bin Laden a freedom fighter - Harawira", NZ Herald, May 5, 2011

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Submissions on local government election bill

Share |

Here is my submission to the NZ government on the election of politicians in local government. Submissions close 1st Feb 2011.

Why do you imagine that voters are not turning out? Might they appreciate that values are not collective? Might they realise that any 'collective wisdom' is merely extortion by those who purport to represent the majority? Frankly, I don't think many of them grasp it. Why should they - when they are given no real opportunity to participate. They are instead obliged to pay out rates unconditionally. Mind you at least local govt more closely approximates real or tangible services, as opposed to the federal budget. But there is still a great deal of collectivist waste involved.

Why do you think there is a great deal of contempt for politicians in the public domain? Might it reflect the incapacity and unwillingness of candidates to be accountable, to respect facts, to educate them...as opposed to telling them what they want to hear.

At least in local politics there is some notion of competition, but clearly that is not enough, when there is extortion when the election results are finalised. We live in hope for capable people, but the reality is that people are so repressed, they do not want capabilities which would require them to think. i.e. They want to pretend that some person is going to take care of them, and politicians as middlemen are elected to peddle the nonsense which allows them to retain that illusion. Now, do you imagine that educational standards are elevated by helping people delude themselves into thinking that others will care for them? No. They will never be better educated by this system than they are now...because they will only get more repressed, as our system of law, taxation, business gets more complicated. This complexity is not a question of logic...its a question of arbitrary imposition and compliance, which means they have no interest or prospect of understanding it. You invest millions in databases to benefit from technology, and yet you expect lay persons to understand your complicated, arbitrary rules, which defy logic.

The importance of local govt is peripheral to the main game which is the national govt laws which sanction its existence, and legitimatise the way it functions.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Justice in New Zealand

Share |

Here is a piece of New Zealand legislation which is 'intended' to simplify the criminal justice system. It is really but a joke. The government is not capable for the reasons I cite. I you want to lodge your own submission to the NZ government, write here.

It is laughable that the legislature would attempt to 'simplify' the legal system when its history over the past 1000 years has been to do exactly the opposite. Let me assure you that in effort by the government to seek to 'simplify' the court system is about as useful as plugging a hole in a dam wall. Of course it allows government to pretend or be perceived to be doing something...and politics is about perceptions. It was never about facts. Science is incidental because it carries some legitimacy, but the real show is managing perceptions.

So if you are not fundamentally evil, my guess is that you are fundamentally repressed as legislators, that you are unable to see the following:

1. The criminal justice system is complicated (i.e. needs simplification) because it is increasingly being based on arbitrary statutory law, and less on principles of common law, which actually apply and consider the context of the situation to which the law applies. The implication is that statutory law defies reasons, so it needs constant remedial measures to resolve the problems it originally created. Because it is arbitrary, it needs exemptions to resolve other problems (i.e. issues of contextual interpretation).

2. Even your own agencies cannot understand the law and offer an interpretation, so how is the public expected to know the (arbitrary) law? This is the arbitrary standard by which you would judge people? Of course criminal law is better because there is less statutory law than other areas of law.

3. It does not help that the parliamentary system is based on perceptions and popularity rather than facts. You are about to introduce stricter alcohol legislation. You might ask yourself why kids are seemingly more prone to 'narcissistic' acts of defiance and disregard for the interests of others given the nature of the legal code. You are not resolving the problem....you are worsening it.

4. You imagine yourself to be offering people political protection or 'rights', but your rights mean nothing when they exclude economic rights. What good is a political right to life, when you allow govt to control my material (i.e. economic) capacity to live. There is no dichotomy between mind-body. My mind provides the means to survive. Extort wealth (i.e. taxation) and you enslave my mind. That would be clean. But by what act of depravity would you force (i.e. tax compliance) would you force me to act against my interests, and proclaim that I am a 'selfish' tax evader if I fail to acknowledge the moral greatness of your inefficient system. Why do you imagine that you, with each reform bill, are always 10 years behind the market. Might it be because you are rewarded 'unconditionally' for compliance to your evil system.

Any step you take is an act of evasion or psychological repression. In the 1960s, just men were repressed because only they were slaves to the system. If you want to know the travesty of your 'progress', its that you have turned women into servile, repressed slaves, to the system instead of men. However, now women live under the same pretense of freedom as men. Yes, women's right to independence allowed them to be slaves to the tax system. This greatly improved our 'manual productivity', but it was at the cost of people's minds. Do you imagine that through coercive values, you would not hinder the intellectual development of mankind. Simply look at what collectivism has done to Russia and compare it to the United States...compare the number of Nobel Prizes....compare the nature of what they win a prize for..i.e. Mendeleyev, developer of the periodic table...a simple effort of correlation. Look at the complex feat of integration I am performing. That would not happen in Russia, it would scarcely have happened in the West, if it was not for those champions of freedom, which prevent me from endorsing or participating in your 'false economy'. I am on strike in a sense...but so is everyone who renounces contradictions and represses.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

New Zealanders support current voting system

Share |

New Zealanders are a flawed people. There first mistake is finding any utility in democracy. Despite that, they have the good sense to see value in retaining the MMP voting system. The appeal of this system is that it gives new, emerging parties a greater chance of being elected, and finding representation....if that is a good thing. It is good in one respect - it offers the prospect of greater competition. The contemporary two-party system is not competitive....least of all when politicians are getting a lifetime pension. There is considerable incentive for the parties to preserve this entrenched system, so expect the major parties to form coalitions in order to retain their 'relevance'.

Clearly the problems in the ACT Party did not change their view of the MMP.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Retirement age deferred to 67yo

Share |

The NZ government has announced that the retirement age is being deferred from 65yo to 67yo. The reason of course is that the NZ work horse is not working hard enough, so he has to work longer in order to carry his costs. Is that the real lesson? I would care to differ in several respects.

1. The government is not very efficient. We have a lot of costs placed upon us by inefficient government. Government is incredibly centralised, which is great for economies of scale. The problem is that too much depends on slow government decision-making. There is also the problem of poor cost recovery, which makes capital investments unsustainable. The implication is that NZ has one of the worst funding provisions for capital infrastructure in the OECD. Note all the failures in the telecom sector. There is a great deal of inefficiency, particularly in local govt. Its all too common to see council workers standing around, or performing wasteful expenditure.

2. Youth is not well-prepared: The tough love evident in NZ is really a sign of poor values. NZ really remains caught in 'old world' 1970s values. There is too much indulgence, lack of pride, purpose, self-esteem, and self-awareness. There is really a need for some structure or self-discipline in a great many lives. There is a need in this country for the affluent and enlightened decision-makers to engage with the Maori and 'white trash' as we might euphemistically call them, in order to give them positive incentives to work hard, provide constructive support for their children, and to develop a sense of personal identity which differentiates them from others.

There are too many vacant minds in the country. Too many kids who are idle. There are too many people who hate their jobs, who are thus inclined to work 3 days and charge for five.

Living standards are supposed to improve....so why is the retirement age falling? The simple answer is we are living longer. But that is not the reason. The average life expectancy of people in Western countries is probably rising 1 year every 7 years. i.e. A rate of 1.3%. This compares with real growth in national income of just 1.2% per annum between 1975-2005. That is very low growth. Check out the history of economic growth here. Aside from slugging population growth, the problem is constrained national income. There is too little provision for capital spending and too much spending on recurrent items. This can be partially attributed to the welfare state which gives primacy to giving, as opposed to creating; however this reflects the deeper issue of values. There are some unhealth, reactionary, short-term, deluded egos in NZ who are simply keeping this economy down, and the NZ government is financing them. I would suggest the public sector is one and the same problem. This is the problem with middlemen. Politicians will flog the beast for every working hour it can get without reflecting on its own impact. So long as it preserves its moral relativism, we will be voting for National-Labour. It is a deluded or false dichotomy which serves no one. Get rid of democracy. Its poison!

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

NZ government and opposition policy lunacy

Share |

When you look at the NZ political landscape....an explorer might declare its 'desert' and sparsely populated with good ideas. Take the latest saving from both:

1. The Labour Opposition Party

2. The NZ Reserve Bank governor

The Labour Finance minister is arguing that he is not in favour of privatisation, but partnerships between private and public capital are ok. One might wonder why the distinction. It is a silly, arbitrary one....but then I never looked to politicians as moral exponents, or leaders of anything worthwhile. On the contrary, they display the hubris of wanting to look 'new age', but in the process, simply looking like idiots. What is the intent of this government policy? Maybe Labour realises that its hard to attract capital to NZ, so you have to offer 'statutory favours' (i.e. kickbacks) to business through 'partnerships'. Maybe Labour wants to make some money on the side after the travel allowances were abandoned?

Ideologically where are they going? Why retain control over SOEs? Is private business is bad, why don't they embrace the nationalisation of business? Maybe that is too politically incorrect. Maybe Labour represents socialism in its 'unashamed honesty'.. well no, otherwise they would favour nationalisation. Nope, intellectual cowards. Are they not content with extorting wealth through taxes, that they need to drive business as well? Don't they see this as a conflict of interest? i.e. Govt as both regulator, judiciary and executive? Well they do it in government to such bad effect, why not in business as well? Isn't it privatisation? Well, Labour will not allow itself to believe this because it wants to establish the support of the unions. What we are going to see is the SOEs use this concession to shift businesses into SOE subsidiaries, so the SOEs might end up functioning like the model of Singapore's cronyism, where SOEs are investing in totalitarian states like Myanmar, with utterly no accountability because they have a state minister as their patron saint.

What does their suggestion achieve? Firstly, it entails the ongoing enslavement of private capital for public purposes, with the perpetuation of the state/public delusion of economic, moral or political worth. It totally ignores the problems caused by the state, it ignores the psychological impact of slavery, moral scepticism and marginalisation of everyone, or at minimal the fear of being marginalised, alienated or imprisoned for some arbitrary statutory law conjured up by the government, i.e. Speeding camera fines for which their is no logical justification, or the blatant lack of accountability of judges in the judicial system, nor the failure to address the conflict of interest in having judges appointed by the two major parties. It matters little the judiciary is bipartisan, since both parties retain an entrenched interest in their longevity, at the expense of other parties.. But on a more fundamental level, who cares what the parliament thinks. They are a pack of idiots. They don't convey moral authority. Have you ever heard political philosophy spoken from George Bush? No. Have you heard of John Key consulting a moral philosopher? A scientist? Well yes, but they do this only on the margins. Public policy is decided in cabinet with the support of the party. Its party generated, and its utter evil. It is indefensible, but it does not need to be defended because they have the majority. The public who voted for them have to trust them...because they have a choice every 3 years, and if they are wrong, they get to vote for another group of extorting, thieving idiots who fundamentally support the same thieving system.

The Reserve Bank has advised the government to adopt the Nordic system of taxing the income from capital rather than income. This is because NZ does not produce any income, so you have to tax the holders of capital. Hmmm? The problem with that is that it will diminish the value of capital by making it a cost burden, making it cheaper for foreign enterprise to buy. More importantly, it does not change what is fundamentally wrong with taxation and centralised, arbitrary government control - that they are coercive, centralised and arbitrarily defined. This is merely an idea from a government agency bereft of ideas, playing on the fringes of a very evil system. Democracy will not lead us to some form of collectivism...it is collectivism. We are slowly seeing individualism undermined by the 'common interest', or at least the pretense of it through imaginary representation.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Pike River Mine tragedy: The competency of management

Share |

The more information that emerges about this mine accident, the more one is compelled to reflect on what plausibility could be the reason for the accident. An inquiry will make the final decision after hearing submissions, however after reading the latest news from the NZ Herald, I am going to raise several points:

1. The current CEO was appealing because he had a relationship with miners in the area. He was therefore appealing as a CEO candidate because he had the capacity to keep wages low. It is a small town, so a 'liked CEO' has the capacity to stop 'wage extortion' during a coal mining boom. This is a small town, so you want to appeal to 'old town' values right? Did this result in safety mistakes? Did he have underground mine experience in Qld?

2. The latest news suggests that the operations manager at the mine was "a former Deputy Chief Inspector of Coal Mines with the Department of Mines in Queensland" (source). This is a concern to me because you have a bureaucrat running a mining operation. A certificated mine worker has since convinced me that this manager was experience in underground coal mining and that he was very safety conscious. He has worked with him, and argued that I should not attribute blame to him. I have attempted not to do that because (like most), I am on the outside...merely highlighting plausible causes for the disaster. Gas and coal dust explosions are preventable. Its possible this could have been anticipated, but it must be acknowledged that even the best supervisors cannot completely avert poor practice because they must delegate responsibility, human error, someone has a bad night, etc. Taking work in NZ could ultimately be considered a step back in one's career, or maybe it was a retirement decision. The inquiry will make the decision...this commentary is only intended to assist any family ensure all bases have been covered.

So you might ask...how is the government to blame for this? Well, its a long straw, but aside from the points I have made elsewhere, the problem arises because of government for several reasons:

1. Government regulation makes decision-making arbitrary and overly centralised, resulting in bottlenecks in supply and demand. Govt makes markets less efficient.

2. Chinese huge energy demand which sees corporate entities making 'life-threatening' decisions for the sake of large profits, or distorting markets so others are marginal, can tend to result in 'short cuts'. The Chinese demand was because of political oppression by the Chinese 'government', and now suddenly they release the oppression, you get an economic and investment boom stimulated by cheap wages. The same thing happened in the Industrial Revolution. The distortions created slum conditions, which we see today in Chinese cities. Its not news so much in the West because there is no modern-day Karl Marx going to China and reporting on it. It will probably happy. Probably some rich liberal too; but that won't stop the 'maligned working class' from blaming all rich people and capitalism.

They will be too uneducated and unthinking to make any reasonable analysis; but it won't stop them from duly disparaging capitalism and capitalists with smear as to its impracticality, when it was always socialism and the socialistic distortion of capitalism. You will hear only smear about 'greedy capitalists'. You will not hear how this Pike River CEO was under tremendous pressure, knew the workers personally, regarded them as friends; nor the fact that he cried over their losses. Cynicism will rein and they will disparage people on dubious ideological grounds. That does not mean we should repudiate ideas. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water....as moral sceptics are prone to do...you remain a critical and engaged thinker.

It was just released that their has been a 2nd mine explosion at the Pike River operation on the West Coast of NZ. The Police Operations Commander has come out to defend his decisions. He argues that a 'team of experts' has made this 'logical' decision. One might wonder whether it was a 'majority' vote, and whether there were any objectors or critics of the strategy from within the team. Governments, in fact many decision-makers, are reluctant to convey that it was a difficult decision. It would therefore be good to know - who objected to the strategy and why? Have those objectors been vindicated? We might never know if their were any objections. Hopefully the media will ask the question, and if the media will have access to them. I suggest there may have been a poor decision-making process in place. i.e. A democratic one as opposed to an objective one. There is a belief that if you take a democratic vote among experts you will get the best decision. You don't! You get the smarter people stifled by political agendas and committee-talk. There needs to be a process of reconciling conflicting ideas in order to develop the best strategy. The process by which decisions were reached was not developed.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Xenophobia in NZ - Chinese owned farms?

Share |

According to a NZ Herald article, NZ is displaying the same 'xenophobia' that we have seen in other countries over the years. Noteworthy cases are Japan and Australia. It is apparently the ultimate effrontery to have people or enterprises from another country to buy property in your country. In the 1970s to 1980s Australians were worried about Japanese companies and individuals buying up a lot of properties on the Gold Coast. In Hawaii, Americans were wary of Japanese buying up housing as well, sending prices higher. Apparently it was forcing people out of homes. The 'property boom' collapsed and most of those Japanese were caught out selling their properties at record low prices. It was a coup for Australian and US investors. For NZ, the Chinese have perhaps a better case to make. They will probably end up buying productive dairy assets and selling them as lifestyle blocks to another set of foreigners in 20 years. Good deal? That ultimately depends on the opportunities explored and seized by the NZ investors who sold the land. What will they do with their money? Build more profitable businesses for NZ? We don't know. We might look at the financial literacy of the people concerned. I must say this is a current time of high prices for milk, and Chinese demand is taking off. Is this a time to sell dairy farms? Probably not. So why don't those concerned buy the assets? No money? I guess its just not their time, or maybe they never got the chance.

Anyway, its a nice rationalisation ! The Chinese are prepared to pay 40% above market price for the asset. Maybe they will export any produce as raw material. Is that your concern? That's because it makes sense to process the stuff in China because that is the market, and they have the lowest processing costs in the world.

Fearful of selling off the NZ farm? Seen it all before. Selling off under-performing assets, and NZ farming is not terribly profitable, releases NZ savings to invest in other businesses with greater profit potential. If you are lucky you might get another google, but at least you will be giving another NZ'er a chance to try. So my for freedom, when you can strike down a sellers 'good deal', or disable his ability to try. Farming is the 'old NZ', you need to wake up to yourself and allow people to invest in the new.

There are some reasons for concern. It could see the dairy cows switched to China in future. That is the nature of markets though. NZ ought to be investing in higher value businesses....not 'ancient' farming practices, nor even labour-intensive modern practices. That ship has sailed. We ought to do it as long as it is competitive, then we ought to be either buying farms in China, or building niche technology and web-service businesses.

That is not to say Chinese businesses ought to be allowed to buy 'open slather' in NZ. There ought to be restrictions on the nature of the enterprising. You don't want NZ enterprise to be competing with Chinese state (possibly subsidised) enterprises. If this was the case, then I think some requirements are needed. i.e. The buyer has to dilute Chinese government equity to less than 20% within 2 years. The reality is that such investments are not technologically strategic, and China will greatly improve its farming anyway, so NZ'ers ought not to be prevented from selling out.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Persistent Maori land right issues in NZ

Share |

The British Empire was a collectivists regime which displayed the same contempt for individual rights that we might associate with China, or sadly the modern state. Individuals were not called 'subjects' for no reason. Personal interests were subjugated to the collective interests. In the case of NZ, Maori land rights were not honoured; lands were seized. Some tracts of lands were given back in certain circumstances, but others missed out. The process for seizing lands was pragmatic; the process for compensation is arbitrary and as unfair as the process for seizing the land originally.

NZ really does need to step up and recognise the rights of Maori to those lands which are not privately owned. No one needs to gain at others expense. I must say however that 'occupation' is a rather loose concept of ownership. There is no reason for a group to be placed in a position to extort value from others for lands which they scarcely use, because they were there first. The notion of 'first occupant' sets the rules does not recognise the common nature and needs of humanity, and does not respect the healthy basis upon which relationships between people ought to be defined.

The problem however is that the existing legislation for dealing with Maori land right claims is inherently flawed. See this NZ Herald article for more information.

NZ Property Guide Philippine Real Estate Guide Japan Foreclosed Guide

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

Excessive taxes on alcohol - backpacker beware

Share |

If you value drinking alcohol, you might want to consider not coming to NZ for a holiday. NZ is already charging a tax of $2.47 per litre on alcohol between 2.5-14% concentration, whether beer or wine. The government is also taking measures, probably punitive, to regulate the campervan trade in NZ.

These are big disincentives for foreigners to travel to NZ, and yet the government is considering another increase in alcohol tax to 'reduce binge drinking among the young'. This is the most insane policy you could imagine. First of all, the tax has already been increased for the same reasons before, to no avail. Is this not simply about using 'punitive taxes' to resolve holes in the national budget. Business will of course need to pass on the costs, which will see a bottle of beer priced between $7-8, and a glass of wine between $16-18. I suggest the increases might even be greater if businesses experience a fall in patronage.

My guess is that the policy would result in several negative effects:

1. Increases organised crime activity in the realm of boot-legging. Maybe the sellers will give you a rebate if you bring your own potatoes.

2. Closure of businesses - restaurants and bars are big employers in NZ, so more taxes is simply going to stop people going out. Expect rural town employers to be particularly hard hit, which will mean population declines in rural areas as rural people are forced to move to the city. I suspect they will move to Australia instead.

3. Less tourism - The backpacker trade will die off because alcohol would be a major expense for this group. They might not spend as much as the premium traveller, but they spend 1-6 months in the country (compared to a few days for business travellers and 1-2 weeks for wealthy retirees), with all funds being recycled through the economy, as well as spreading to the rural areas through the backpacker network. Expect more tourists to head to Australia. OK, Australia does not have the mountain vistas of NZ, but USA, Canada, Europe does, so travellers from those countries will not miss them. Australia will be a more holiday friendly place.

4. Greater use of alcohol substitutes - You can't use punitive measures to correct some action you consider inappropriate. There is a need for education - but not the idiotic messages we are accustomed to on TV. The problem is more fundamental. The problem is that academics do not understand the alcoholism issue. What they don't realise is that kids are going to explore other options like 'glue sniffing', meth, etc. The implication is that the government is driving people into more illicit activities as well as more dangerous activities. Having researched this issue I can tell you that the behaviourist school of stupidity is driving public policy on such issues. Governments are therefore labouring under the misconception that humans are animalistic. The reality is they totally lack any theory of values.

I will be among the first to suggest that alcoholism consumption is a problem, but the solution is never greater taxation. Taxation is slavery - not education! It might change behaviour at the margin, or in the short term, but the 'externalities' of such policies are far greater than any benefit. The implication is greater use of meth, greater use of methylated spirits (i.e. cheaper), greater illicit activity.

NZ might just learn that one of the appeals of travelling to NZ is the low cost of living. After all it is so far away, and does not have a lot of culture to offer. Basically its an 'outdoors experience'. My advice is - ditch the taxes, as well as the bureaucrat/academic reports which suggest punitive measures are the best way of avoiding youth binge drinking.

Send a message to the NZ government that taxation is NOT the solution! Take a holiday in Australia if you are in this part of the world. Better still punish the Australian government (who do the same thing) and tax a holiday in the Philippines or Vietnam. Alcohol there is just $1/beer. With the savings you will be able to buy an apartment for $50K. :)

Another paradox of these silly policies is that youth unemployment is pretty bad in NZ, and kids wanting a sense of efficacy are turning to alcohol or drugs to medicate their low self esteem. The government I believe is quickly taking this country into an escalating crime regime. You guessed it! That means more taxation to regulate behaviour because we didn't learn in the N^{th round of tax increases. We need a change in government administration so we can avoid the spiraling crime and incompetence as practiced by Western governments around the world. They are truly the pits. There is simply a complete lack of good sense and reason needs to be the standard of value. What qualifications do these people have? What life experience? The problem is they are not analytical thinkers. They are lawyers with 'good memories'. Precisely not the type of people you want drafting law.}

^{Details on NZ tax - see Wikipedia.}

The problem in NZ politics - ok Western democracy

Share |

This instance highlights the lack of integrity in the Maori Party, but most particularly the parliamentary process since this behaviour is typical of politicians. Tariana Turia is the co-leader of the Maori Party. But she is also a minister in the NZ coalition with the National Party. In a recent parliamentary vote she was obliged to depart from her party position (which she supported) in order to vote with the government (ie. National Party).
The issue was the policy initiative of the National Party to limit assistance to single mothers I think to dependents less than 6 years of age. The stupidity of the system is that this is actually encouraged, and worse still because it is deemed acceptable.

Do we have any hope of good policy when:
1. Ministers are more loyal to the Cabinet than their own principles
2. Ministers sacrifice the interests of one group for the sake of another
3. Policy issues are decided by votes (i.e. numbers) rather than reasons or principles (concepts)
4. Minister self-interest is about retaining one's career.

The implication is that the system actually rewards such displays of disloyalty. This is the problem with the system and it needs to change. I don't know why people are so proud of our democracy. Any idiot should be able to see how rediculous the system is. It actually rewards bad behaviour.

NZ property still makes sense for some

Share |

For Americans the price of property in NZ is looking rather expensive. For most others, the price is still cheap since most currencies have rallied strongly against the USD. Consider that the USD is at a 10-year low to the Yen, and a post-recession low for most other currencies. The implication is that NZ still makes a lot of sense for foreigners. The great tax concessions for property in NZ are still in place, and current expectations suggest a tax on property is only likely to apply to investment property. NZ has one of the most generous taxation policies on property in the world. (see previous posts).
NZ property is of course still expensive. There are those looking at current rises in prices and suggesting prices have bottomed. I would caution that we have yet to see any significant increases in inflation (i.e. interest rates), so highly indebted NZ households have yet to feel the full weight of home affordability pressures.
The implication is that there will be good buying ahead for NZ investors, so come patience is required. There is still low-priced properties you can buy if you are looking at lifestyle properties in rural towns. You can still buy houses for as little as $NZ60K in some areas of NZ.

Having just toured some people around NZ I can assure you the place is as beautiful as ever. There has been a lot of rural development over the last 10 years. The new places I'd be looking at are:
1. Wanganui
2. Oamaru-Palmerston
3. North coastline of Christchurch
4. Te Anau
5. Whakatane

Americans of course do not need to weight too much longer. I think you can expect a strong USD policy in future in order to build savings, just as Clinton did after Reagan. I would expect some shift to energy taxes as well. This makes a lot of sense in a country which is primarily a service economy, or a high value-add. It is a big country though, so expect an impact to non-discretionary spending as well. There should also be some dilution of the currency as well. This is so-called 'balanced monetary policy'. Other countries will be doing similar. Though I would expect a strong USD policy in future.

The implication is that Americans can still look at buying in NZ, but they should get a loan if they qualify and transfer their wealth later when the USD recovers. I would expect the AUD to pull away from the NZD in coming years due to the strong energy & mineral sectors there. The flipside is that inflation should keep personal spending at bay in Australia, as household debt payments rise. So I'm expecting the AUD (which currently is 20% stronger than the NZD) to increase the premium over the NZD in coming years.

Factors which may change this prospect would be the discovery of large oil & gas reserves in NZ, or strong economic reform. NZ really needs to stimulate higher value (non-food) exports. Historically it has done a bad job of that, and its savings rate is hopeless.