Buying products online - NZ wholesalers

Share |

Living in Australia or NZ, one is inclined to pay too much if you buy store-stocked products. This is reason enough to buy online from places like http://excsur.com. This outfit served my step-sister in Australia, so I don't know if they service NZ. Ask them. There are many such online outfits. Obviously its better if they have a local office. I bought my Toshiba laptop online for $NZ560, with an extra battery from a group in Auckland called Playtech - see www.playtech.co.nz. Often you come across these groups by doing a search for popular items like computers. i.e. These wholesalers are often listed on price-comparison websites.

In Japan, I bought a GPS from another group - forget the name of that group, but they were British international. Ex??.com.

A lot of these companies offer free shipping, but of course its the total price value. There are certain things you want to buy in-store. Some things are hard to buy, like business shirts. You need to make sure you know how to measure your size by their standards. Your tailor might have different fitting standard to them.

Liberals would make Hitler proud

Share |

Wanganui NZ is the host to the United Nations 'Peace with Justice' conference. Basically the conference is stacked with politicians, liberals, bureaucrats and the like....all people detached from reality by virtue of other people' money, whether its a rich grandfather, government salary, a non-representative political system, or simply another form of default, whether a history of family abuse or self-loathing. Why do I say that? Well this is the basis upon which these people exist. Their scheme on this occasion is 'Peace with Justice'. Their stated purpose is:

"A world without weapons of mass destruction and with climate change solutions that put people at it’s centre".

The problem with this cause is that they will not achieve their goal. Why? It is not a reasonable objective; its based on false premises; and these are precisely the type of people who will achieve nothing. They are not the solution, they are the problem.

Let's explore some of their issues. Nuclear weapons have contributed more than anything in the current world to the protection of people. Why? Nuclear weapons protects potential victims. People are potential victims of collectivism; that is any philosophy which subjugates facts to perceptions, or any 'majority' who professes to represent the majority. It is no coincidence that organisations like this are alligned with socialists, animal liberationists, welfare advocates, climate change doomsdayers. They have a common scheme - humanity is evil, he has to be restrained from his selfish ways, and the common good involves ....the pursuit of peace, climatic steady-state and justice. Sounds good...but the devil is in the detail.

The problem is that peace is not the standard of value, life is; as well as any measure which protects it. In such issues the basic unit of consideration is the individual, thus such groups ought to be seeking to enshrine individual rights. On this issue the UN is ambivalent because whilst the various UN Declarations and other conventions attempt to protect individual rights, they do so with dubious vigour. These were the noble objectives of the UN in the post-WWII period. Today the values of the organisation are clouded by collectivist philosophy which has seen Keynesian style policies. i.e. Governments running a sequences of credit-financed boom & busts, whilst underfunding regulation of CEOs, etc who bring the market into disrepute. This was of course the intention - to discredit markets, the selfishness of market participants, when it was all orchestrated by governments to keep them in power. The focus of the UN on justice, peace and global warming is a side-show to deliver collectivist - the basic form of socialism. By no means is socialism dead. In every generation it is reinvented. This generation is disparaging global warming and animal rights.

Interestingly, I have never heard an animal rights advocate show any concern for farmers who raise animals. Their interests are 'collateral damage', as they seek to use their political influence over the uninformed, uncritical thinking electorate to extort political concessions from government. Hardly a cause likely to deliver peace, but was that ever their objective. How can you have peace without a discussion of values. Why the focus on peace. If they are seriously interested in peace, they ought to be focused on solving problems, i.e. conflict resolution. In that respect, they do not have the capacity because they are the problem. They lack the values, the cognitive (critical thinking) capabilities and objective to deliver. Instead they, along with liberals in the media and government-sponsored academics are inducing a sense of guilt, social obligation and peer group pressure which is actually pushing us towards collectivism. They are so concrete-bound they know not what they do.

On my global warming blog you can read about the misinformation about global warming. The reason that no politicians are pushing emissions trading anymore because they are awakening to the fact that its a huge scam perpetrated by academics with no respect for objectivity. On my politics blog you can likewise learn why governments are not the solution but the problem, and why such non-government organisations (NGOs) like UNANZ are simply an extension of the same con job. Finally you can more about how society is being conned into recognition of rights for animals, with a greater zeal than Adolf Hitler. Why do you think Hitler wanted to elevate the rights of animals. Do you think it was love of animals or loathing of humanity? Such is the sense of life of these pithy liberals who are not going to deliver freedom, they are going to give greater powers to government to take it away, whether to protect animals (i.e. more regulation), protect the environment (i.e. more regulation) or peace (more rights). The problem is not that they want to protect these things, the problem is they want to protect people with arbitrary rights which will only destroy your prospects of achieving rights.

Most people will fail to grasp the intelligence of this article.... a testimony to your lack of conceptual integration. Read on....these is plenty more explanation. Rome was not built in a day. The thing to remember is that any arbitrary defined right is not a protection, its an obligation or a noose around your head. Grasp that and you will grasp your political legacy and future. When your right to education or whatever constitutes a claim on other people, it is apparent the whole concept of rights has been soiled. Government is a middleman who needs to justify its existence. It does not want to solve problems, it exists by burying you in them. Just like a stockbroker wants to buy & sell stock for you, the government corners both sides of the market, by creating the problem, and creating the perception of being a solution....have you ever seen that happen by the hand of government. Complex problem? Certainly, they have the majority fooled.

The most inaccessible country in the world

Share |

I am willing to bet that NZ is the most inaccessible place to go in the world. Its terrible! Whether you are flying in or out. The good news is that flights are not so expensive anymore. The problem is:
1. Trying to get connections
2. Trying to get flights at reasonable times

I have tried all types of routes to get to the Philippines. I have looked at leaving from Wellington or Auckland. I've looked at flights through Melb, Sydney, Gold Coast, so I could get a cheap flight with Asia Asia. The problem I have is connections. Each requires staying overnight in Australia. Why? Because the NZ flights leave too late, or don't fly direct. I can't even get to Melbourne by noon.

This is not the first time I've had this problem. Its a constant problem. Of course I can always fly Air NZ. Great service, but never competitively priced. I remember attending a conference in Wellington, and I had to fly the day after in order to get back to Sydney, and I had the same problem arriving.

Telephone service with Jetstar is pretty poor, though their flights are cheap.

Large companies have disappointing ethics - supporting scams

Share |

Here is an example of another large company engaging in unethical business practices. We warned Vodafone NZ about their activities over a month ago, and they are still carrying out the activity. They refused to refund us, but they did give us 20c credit to cancel the service.

Here is the scam. If you go to a website like this - a major newspaper - and you see an IQ test on the side left bar. It invites you into doing a test. Of course if you are curious, you engage as its free right. Continue on and you get to a point where you think you have to enter your tel number in order to get the IQ test result. You don't at this point know if you are paying for the test result, but you suspect that the tel number will be used for an advertising service, or follow up email.

What you don't see is the disclaimer because it is out of view. If you have a small netbook like me, then you will not even see the disclosure, which is not even in the same dialogue box as the box where you place your tel number. Clearly this is designed to be misleading.

Days later after my GF placed my cell phone number into this box, my cell phone credits were emptied. We contacted Vodafone, who refused to reimburse us. They did give us a 20c credit to cancel the scheme. We attempted to contact the company behind the scheme. The only number goes to a call centre in the Philippines. They were useless, but we were given a number in the USA. They were also useless.

This is the way business is going - international rackets to earn punitive, misleading fees. Banks started the process, and now telephone companies are going the same way. Of course maybe you think its just $20. Not worth complaining about.....but look at the banks...its $25 for an overdraft, its $20 for a zero balance. Sometimes you don't chose these things, they are imposed. You are buried in rules, such that you cannot live a life without a lawyer. And who would sue a person for $20. You would sooner slit your throat...or as most people do...simply repress it.

Everyone I know is repressed...except my immediate partner. People don't think because thinking only exposed your vulnerability to corporations engaging in scams. This is the world as structured by the "representative democratic" tradition. The politicians like this because it leaves them in political power, whilst their corporate affiliates loot you. They underfund regulatory agencies so you have no capacity to complain. For the hell of it - I suggest complaining here - http://www.comcom.govt.nz/online-complaint-form/

You might just receive an email explaining that they are under-resourced. I've heard it all before. The same crap in Australia.

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.}

Performance of Wanganui Mayor NZ

Share |

Michael Laws is a rather high profile mayor in NZ. Mostly it is because of his antics. It always gets a lot of national attention, as well as derision. His conservatism is popular with the retirees in Wanganui I suspect. But let's look at his performance. The council rates are increasing by 4.5% in 2010/11. This seems most enough when you consider inflation, but one might ask why councils can't achieve cost reductions through efficiencies, particularly when we are talking about a rural region subject to steady population.

I think one of the biggest opportunities for saving public money is by adopting a per volume cost for water usage. I note the impact of free water on the community. My neighbour said 'Andrew, don't worry about wasting water, its free'. I replied 'nothing is free', someone always pays. The reality is that Wanganui water is expensive because it is derived from bores as opposed to regulated dam storage. The implication is that if there was an increase in population, we would need to develop more boring capacity. I note that the council recently developed new boring capacity to substitute for the failed no. 1 bore. It should have simply adopted a pro-rata pricing of water. Now, this might be harder than it sounds, i.e. Maybe the water in NZ is unmetered. I guess, unlike Australia, they are so accustomed to having free water. Even so, even if usage was collectively based on the premise of 'user pays', it might still have some effect, even if weaker. i.e. My neighbour would be less inclined to say 'its free', knowing that collectively I was paying more because of his actions.

Another big mistake is for Wanganui Council to have paid $20 million (my understanding) for Wanganui Gas. This utility is a legacy of the old electricity and gas board days. By buying the balance of the utility from its JV partner, it is exposing rate payers to commercial risks which we don't need. Consider for starters that the industry is undergoing consolidation. How is its retail arm 'Energy Direct' going to compete with the full service providers. I might add that the window of opportunity to sell this utility is dying. Consider that the ratio of residential to industrial gas prices in NZ are the highest in the world- even higher than statist Japan, where consumers always get a bad deal. Literally slaves to the state. NZ residential gas prices based on last years prices are 10x greater than the prices for utilities. The reason of course is that the NZ privatisation scheme was a sham, and the very uncompetitive regime for gas and electricity in NZ. Consider that consumers are baying full price for electricity, when most capacity is operated at almost zero cost. Water is free, and no fuel cost. Markets demand you pay the marginal price, which is the cost of high-cost wind, also near-free to operate, but costly to install. The implication is that if some person decided to commission a 600MW power plant, prices could halve, and the utilities would still make a great profit. The current regime is huge profits for the utilities, as well as government, and it raises the question of whether the utilities have paid huge kickbacks to secret bank accounts in Switzerland in order to structure 'deals' like these. Hard to say if its incompetence or corruption. There is a fine line between stupidity and deceit.

It ought to be apparent though that Wanganui Council has on benefit to derive from being in the industry given that the returns are never going to be greater. Get out why you can! Coal seam gas would erode their profitability when developed in the Waikato Basin, greater convergence can be expected, etc. There is better ways to attract jobs that by propping up historical practices.

It is apparent that the council is creating a problem of future unfunded liabilities by underspending on the maintenance of public infrastructure. These problems or cost items will not disappear, which means that the Council is moderating rate increases by increasing future contingencies. I am a believer in very small government, so the idea of a local government having $84 million in debt is ridiculous, particularly one which cannot attract people (i.e. rate payers). Worse still is the fact that they project it will increase to $96 million before falling. Who can know that is reasonable - that the debt will fall to $66mil in 2018/19? Are they projecting a population explosion to justify it, or an increase in future rates? Hard to see if this is possible if they are pushing capital outlays into the future.

Laws makes the argument that Wanganui will be among the 'elite' group of 16 councils (of 73) able to reduce debt in this period. This says nothing since Wanganui is among the few councils likely to be forecasting stagnant population growth. i.e. No capital expenditure demands. Such 'relativist' statements are therefore misleading.

I do think the council is doing a good job improving the visual appeal of the city. This will attract tourism, and improve property prices. Wanganui is a great place to live, and I also support their desire to improve the negative perception of Wanganui. People seem to think this town is overrun by gangs. I have yet to see any gang activity in the year I have lived here. Not seen a gang member at all, and we live close to hot spots of trouble. Maybe this is the result of the anti-crime initiatives, because I must say in the first 8 months of living here, I was seeing a police car every day. Now its once a week.

I also appreciate the opportunity the council has given to make public submissions. Not a believer in representative democracy, but better than nothing. No accountability, so its one-sided representation. What is the point of disclosure if you have no recourse for 3-4 years; and that recourse is zilch in comparison to the rest of the unthinking electorate.

Unjust speeding tickets legislation in NZ and Australia

Share |

I have some strong views against the punitive speeding tickets, parking fines legislation stretching over several countries.
My concern is:
1. The punitive nature of the action - often there is no intent to speed, and it can hardly be construed as 'negligence' to wonder over the limit if the conditions justify it.
2. The lack of effective recourse - who wants to waste time going to court to save $150
3. The arbitrariness of the legislation, ie. In Australia I was fined for speeding going up a steep hill, when the steep limit is the same going down the other side. The limit was artificially low.
4. The arbitrariness of cameras - particularly in Australia - I was caught driving out of a town at 70kmph when the conditions were excellent, i.e. up hill, good clearance, fine weather, good road
5. The lack of scientific validity for the claims made, ie. Where is the evidence that 'speed kills'. I would argue this legislation is an over-simplification used by govts to raise taxes. NZ is going the same way as Australia. I can't live there any more. Its like living in police state.
6. Externalities - After I was caught for speeding, I was driving a further 5 hours in a state of stress. What about the sudden braking in response to 'natural' fears about a speeding camera. or the paranoia about police cars everywhere. Everyone's driving ability is different. If there is no scientific basis for the legislation, there will be harmful externalities. Another is my loss of confidence in government, the political system. The accountability that society has is under-funded, arbitrary, and loop holing.
7. Unfairness - The way this legislation attacks people of principle and the poor, as opposed to pragmatic & wealthy souls who give it no mind. Yes, we want more mindless people in society, and we want fewer critical thinkers because we live in such a workers paradise. Some people can't afford the cost of living in a police state.
8. The disparity in application - The police drive with impunity. Years ago I went on a skiing trip in Australia with police recruits. They were drinking whiskey whilst driving 100kmph on a back country road. In northern NSW, a local policeman warned drinkers in a pub that he would be watching a certain road on Melbourne Cup day. Meanwhile, outside Taree NSW, a local policeman patrols the highway because he does not want the discomfort of catching locals and potential friends. Justice is hardly served by either practice - cameras or no cameras. Give the policeman a clever answer and you escape punitive damages.
Perhaps you were thinking that these 'unmeasured' externalities are worth it. Think again. The fall in the road toll is not because of compliance with speed limits, it is because of the gradual improvement in roads as we straighten precarious highways, upgrade to dual-carriage ways, adopt road partitions to stop head on collisions, which have more to do with distraction and tiredness than anything else. A group that is less responsible are drinkers, particularly teen drinkers. Clearly there is a problem with this group, who don't care about the legislation anyway. This group needs special attention, but I would argue their 'rebellious' attitudes are more a response to the 'arbitrary' and punitive nature of our justice and policing system.

I do want to look at this issue in more detail - here is the statistics for NZ.

This legislation is poorly targeted and needs changing. The Consumer NZ non-profit group needs your support, and I suggest providing your insights to marc@consumer.org.nz.
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com