Just one of the many great companies I have identified over the years - Xero Ltd (NZE:XRO)

Share |

In Jan 2010 I recommended a NZ stock called Xero. Based on the Google Finance chart it was $1.64. Anyway, 3.5 years later its $17.64 and worth $2 billion dollars, and its NZ's largest listed company apparently...that's hard to believe. Normally its hard to find such stocks in a small market like NZ.
Anyway I wanted to convey the appeal of managing your own money, and dumping the 'dumbed down' investor belief that you should passively outsource your money to some fund manager who takes you for a commission. Here is the recommendation. There are few sectors which offer that scale of profits. Mining is one of them; online services is another, but that is generally a sector that does not need money. Mining needs money, and it pays nicely. Now is good timing for gold, and a good time to prepare for industrial minerals. Companies like MLX are good examples of the types of company, but you wait for the right time for these companies. Let me explain how to do it - start with Global Mining Investing.
At the time I was less than enthusiastic about NZ Windfarms (NZE:NWF), but thought that they might be worth a punt at 22c. Today they are 7.5c, though if I invested, I am sure I would have long abandoned that one. The reasons it was not a good option:
1. It was investing - always a less scalable option given the high capital cost
2. It had a major strategic partner who as a controlling shareholder could probably care less about capital optimisation
3. It was competing with China
4. Lack of local subsidies for wind
5. The problem with Resource Management Consent - I believe matters are improving in this respect
6. Not much growth in electricity demand - but then incremental capacity additions are well-suited to wind
7. The fact that grid stabilisation is currently not well-suited to a strong reliance on wind, particularly with the under-capitalised NZ grid, though I suspect that problem has since tipped in the other direction.

The reasons to like it were:
1. Prospects for technological innovation
2. Strong local support for wind
3. Appealing local market conditions for wind
4. The possibility of new wind subsidies

I note that Oceana Gold might be a stock to look at because its high cost, so has leverage to gold price incease, but I doubt it has a good resource base to interest me..so I'll steer away from it. I'll stick to the deeper 'Australian' fish bowl.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

New Economics Party - a new hope for NZ?

Share |

New Zealand has the makings of a new political party. Well, its early days for this one because it seems to have no substantive backers. Its called the 'New Economics Party' but my evaluation will demonstrate that its not 'new' just 'ignorance of economics', and that's far from new. The problem with any new political party, or  group with such ambitions is that they inevitably convey a lack of understanding of economics and psychology.
Their idea is to tax 'resources' rather than 'production'. This is a rather silly idea because any tax on resources is passed through to work, so is there any distinction? A resource is nothing without preparation or reticulation/distribution, so its a moot point. Someone has to pay, and its not the resource. So 'resource rent' is not a magical escape from the cost of supporting a welfare state, if that is implied.

There is actually some value in this thinking, though I cannot sanction a collectivist notion like 'the Earth (or resources) are for sharing'. This is not substantive enough as an intellectual foundation, however I would argue or support the notion that people did not 'make' or create' resources. They were already there. So what are we to make of resources which are there, but someone makes them marketable. There is some value in their 'potential' value. The question is:
1. Should private persons be allowed to develop them at zero cost. This is not reasonable because resource assessment and exploitation entails impositions on competing land uses. Do people have a right to expect no impedence from competing land users. i.e. Does your lifestyle property have a right not to expect explosive vibration from a nearby development, even if its not on your land? Clearly, resource development is inextricably linked to other issues.
2. Should private persons be able to develop them after related costs. This makes the most sense simply because it recognises the value created by individuals who didn't create the value, say gold mineral, but they did identify it, spend money appraising it, carrying the risk of plant, capital and labour in order to extract it. The argument is that they are making 'super profits', but those profits arose only because of the boom-bust economy created by governments. A private 'unfettered' market would be more predictable, and more boring. Spculators love contemporary market uncertainty because they manage it full time. Fund managers love uncertainty too because they get to manage the funds of apprehensive salarymen. They get to buy out cheap those small resource companies small investors are scared to invest in.
3. Should a 'middle-man' government to able to act as a custodian and tax those resources or any resulting income for the benefit of others. The implication is that these resources are a 'public good' and that the government can impose high royalties upon these resources so that the miner only extracts a 'nominal' return. The implication of this would be that the governments of the world would effectively be planning resource development and production, and inevitably prices. Might the world benefit from resource planning? No question. Its in fact already there, though it could be argued that the information distribution is less than 'fair'. That is another question, insofar as markets need to appraise market information. What is the public's right to know? What is the implication of not knowing. Risk = ignorance. The implication of not knowing is higher cost of capital. This is not good for resource developers, and thus the justification why resource developers have a vested 'common' interest in disclosure. The flipside is that they might perceive themselves to have a vested interest in misleading information, i.e. Not disclosing or minimalising information about a project. This however does require an act of faith by the investor, and this should not be accepted even if corporate custodians are considered 'trustees', their interests are split between corporation and shareholders. Remember that they are employed by the corporation, which is considered a 'separate entity'. Individual shareholders are therefore collectivised in their interests. You might wonder about how to balance new versus existing shareholders.

The rationale for this 'new economics' is the cliche of resource overuse, resource depletion and climate change. This is reactionary populism. i.e. Politics chasing 'pseudo-science'. Resource depletion is nonsense; long ago discounted. There is no shortage of resources; their presence is essentially infinite. The rhetoric is that there is a fixed quantity of metal in the universe. The stupidity of this argument is that:
1. There is not a fixed number of humans
2. Its an incredibly large universe
3. Our per capita resource use is actually falling in the West whilst rates are still high in the third world, and their population growth rates are rapidly falling. The concerns of today will be the opposite in 30 years time. Then we will be complaining about lack of consumption. i.e. We might be compelled to stimulate people to consume. In fact I doubt this will be the case because I think we will have shifted to a new philosophical system.

This party suggests we need multiple currencies; but in fact this is precisely what we have. There is nothing wrong with that; the problem is that they are supported by the arbitrary power of the government to tax.

"Equality, according to research, makes everyone happier"

This is absolute nonsense for two reasons. The concept of happiness is a rather 'arbitrary' measure of well-being simply because it relies on people's honesty in being able to appraise their happiness. I'd argue that people are surprisingly successful in their capacity to delude themselves into thinking they are happy. I would challenge you to ask people 'who say they are happy' to actually tell you why. I think you might find it enlightening. Its often a wish rather than the true state of their apprehensions about their lives, and their suspicions and disdain of others. The other problem is the contemporary measure of 'equality'. This conception is very often a false dichotomy.

Inequality is actually a non-issue. People don't need to be concerned about 'inequality'; they need to be concerned about 'rights', and basic needs. The richest people are found in 'prosperous' societies; so what threat do they pose. They don't unless given an extortionary sanction by governments. So government is the threat. Money can be used for good or bad; its government which has a monopoly over the legitimatised use of force. The other issue is sustainability living to avoid destitution, and that generally requires some survival strategy and provisions for mishap. It does not require a great deal of wealth, simply a house and farm plot and a basic insurance scheme. We live in a world where people's living standards depend on other's capacity to avoid extortive taxation. This can only justify spurning civil society. They have been disincentivised to produce.

The notion of a state state economy is a nonsensical conception for a number of reasons:
1. There is no justification for renouncing success or security
2. Provisions for security are founded on 'forward-looking' provisions, not avoidance strategies
3.

This political party posits as some defence against 'dog-eat-dog' capitalism, but is precisely the implication of its incoherent values. It simply assumes too much.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

NZ Greens Party and Labour Party discover an 'over the horizon' election losing strategy

Share |

Wow!!!! This is huge news. Labour and Greens together have raised minority party extortion to a new level. As far as I'm concerned, its great news because it highlights the nature of our useless 'representative' democracy. At stake is the spectre of a non-governing party threatening to subvert the existing government.
The Labour Party and Greens are saying in the midst of a power privatisation that they are going to change the rules of the game. An 'asset' is a capitalised stream of earnings. If you change the government, change the rules, you are going to change the expected earnings, or investors sense of vulnerability. The market is already uncertain about 'drought' (least of their worries), the closure of the Rio Tinto smelter, and now Labour and Greens are saying they will thwart the sale - in effect!
This effective curtails any hope of investment in the country (in anything substantive) as well as any hope of getting a sale of assets. Its the cheapest form of populism. Worse that 'minimum wages' and capital gains taxes by a country mile. Mind you, the policy was unpopular for National, and they were too arrogant to even deal with the broad-based apprehensions. This is of course just another reason for spurning 'representative' democracy. see and like us at www.meritocracy.org.nz. Join our mailing list.

This is actually worse that Julia Gillard's Mineral Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) because:
1. NZ needs the jobs and industry
2. Australia is a strategic and prized supplier of minerals
3. People kind of expect minerals to incur some rent
4. The mining industry was always very powerful, and thus a backflip was to be expected
5. The Australian Labor Party is just about to be dropped
The twisted aspect of this is that Labour and Greens just placed themselves in the wilderness....and ACT are looking more credible than ever. We have the socialists to thank for it....they really showed their true colours. Giving people sugar does not always work; most particularly when the market/media show you the implication of your decision-making. Shearer just retired permanently.
I guess we have to respect the 'honesty' (if not blatant stupidity) of the NZ Labour Party and the Greens Party. I guess they have locked in the support of the party faithful. But they might have just jettisoned any member or supporter with any sympathy or brain stem. To those people, I say welcome to ACT Party. John Banks, its leader is probably the only person with half a brain stem, and its a semi-impervious connection to God. So we live in hope. But you know; that's the price you pay for moral relativism. Get rid of representative democracy! Its not really 'democracy' in any meaningful sense. It does not give you 'real representative'. It takes from you power of attorney, vested in a person you will probably never meet or really know, who runs agendas you will scarcely understand because he is thinking full-time about thwarting your better judgement, and you are scarcely 'participating' to bearer scratch together a few brain cells. We need a meritocracy with a rational framework for political discourse. This is the only way that anyone can participate in a legislature. Visit us at www.meritocracy.org.nz. You want respect for your legitimate interests and rights - become a libertarian - we are not all Christians.


Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

Auckland - living on the edge of a volcano - they didn't see it coming

Share |

On the 17th March 2013 I wrote about the risks posed by a volcanic eruption in the Auckland Volcanic Field. I posed a number of questions as much as anything, since as a geologist, I go on evidence, and frankly, I was at a loss to find any. I don’t live in Auckland, so I don’t have any particular interest beyond an odd-hours research, but since writing this story, I’ve seen an escalation in interest in the issue. Might it be that there is more evidence than originally reported? Well there is a follow-up story in the NZ Herald today which raises several more issues which I want to address:
1. Focus of activity – The story probably creates unnecessary fear because it suggests that each of the old active volcanic craters in the Auckland Volcanic Field is active. This is unlikely. More probably an eruption is going to be in the Rangitoto Island area, if not the existing cone.
2. Eruption history – It suggests that Rangitoto has a sporadic eruption history of up to 1000 years. This is less important than the nature of the eruption. Really the threat posed is from an early blast rather than a later flows of liquid, highly fluid magma. Since the eruption is probably going to be offshore, I suggest the greater threat is a mini-tsunami in the bay, as well as a volcanoclastic surge blasting your windows to smithereens. You might want to rethink that bay-side waterfront apartment acquisition; if only for the high rents and the surge risk.
3. Eruption activity – The evidence suggests that volcanic activity has increased in intensity, i.e. the latest eruption some 500 years ago from Rangitoto Island was the most activity in terms of lava flow and ash.  Where does that leave us? Maybe more explosive coming? Maybe simmer or subside.

It goes without saying that Auckland is unique in the world. It is not unknown for cities to be built adjoining volcanoes. The problem for Auckland is that it is probably the only place that I know which is actually built on top of a volcanic field. Having said that; the next eruption is probably going to be offshore. Let’s not forget how ‘recent’ human arrival was; and I’m including the Maoris.

Does it make sense to rethink the focal of NZ development? Does it make sense to keep developing Auckland? Well, given the characteristic of these types of volcanoes, I think it does make sense to keep developing Auckland. Does it make sense to retain it as the centre or focal point for NZ development? Perhaps not; but then expensive housing prices are probably destined to drive people out. Who wants a bird’s eye view of a volcaniclastic surge? Not me.

The reality is that there is a great deal to question about the nature of this volcanic phenomenon. Does one lead one’s future in the hands of academic volcanologists with a limited understanding of geological events? Such volcanologists are really learning as they go, largely on the basis of empirical evidence. They have not even observed an eruption from any field with this style of eruption; let alone from this volcanic field. Reason for caution? Not really perhaps until the evidence trail grows.

Associate Professor Phil Shane said: “Future planning would have to consider living with active volcanism for a long period of time….It is not as bizarre as it sounds, if you think about Iceland and Hawaii - societies have gotten used to living with volcanic activity for generations”.

I have a problem with this statement insofar as Hawaii and Iceland are a completely different type of eruption centre; both in terms of style and character. I doubt there is even the evidence to suggest that Auckland is even a ‘hot spot’ in the conventional sense. Certainly not like Hawaii with its flood basalts, or Iceland for that matter. I suspect its origins are more tectonic than is appreciated, with activity arising from a fractures opening up offshore of Auckland. The evidence is simply not there. There is a major kink in the tectonic plate at Wellington, and you can bet no work has been done interpreting earthquake activity offshore from Auckland.
The problem too often with ‘empirically-driven’ scientists is that they only start questioning convention when some event jumps up in front of them to tell them how little they know about the world (having an incomplete geological account due to erosion and limited observation) and not a great deal of knowledge about the cause of the Auckland Volcanic Field. In this last respect, these empiricists are largely ‘talking blind’. There are not too many geologists around who say ‘I don’t know’. Neither are there many people who define themselves as ‘critical geologists’. Everyone wants to fall back on convention to convey how much they know. The flipside is that unpopular academics seems to be a contradiction in terms, hence you cannot always expect volcanologists (indeed any scientist with unconventional ideas to get taken seriously). Can you imagine how safe one must get with life-time tenure? Can you imagine how annoying a person could become if you worked opposite a professor you did not like for a lifetime? My sense is that they grow to get along; much like the Japanese, defined by their own sense of safety.


Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

Focus NZ Party: A struggle for identity

Share |

The prospect of yet another libertarian party in NZ. I don't know whether to laugh or cry? I do know that I'm leaving the country, so what's the difference. Well, its nice to think that there is some hope of a libertarian sovereign state somewhere; but given the values conveyed by these 'hicks', I do believe I will be crying. So what's up with them. Well, here is the problem as I see it....the list is a little long.


1. The prospect of a a new (Focus NZ) party is probably only going to increase the chance of a Labor-Green victory because it will mean no list seats for a libertarian party. This will of course spell the death of all libertarian parties. 'Divide and rule'....that depends on how you divide. Three libertarian parties is ridiculously too many, particularly since you make no point of differentiation. If they merge with Daniel Craig's Conservative Party (yeh that was a joke) or ACT, that would be better.
2. The other big problem is that they have pursued the wrong approach to credibility. ACT's strategy of digging up former National Party leaders is ridiculous for a party that should be trying to differentiate themselves. Find credibility within the business community and appeal to high profile people across the country to back you, not just business people....otherwise you look like a pack of hicks or vested interests. But don't just create the perception of being broad-based, actually change your mind-set from concrete 'vested interest' 'exporter of the year' myopia, to all issues. Not just fiscal, monetary and industry policy, but welfare, treaty, energy policies and besides.
2. Another big problem for libertarian parties is that they have no clear identity. This is perhaps the hardest pill to swallow, but 'libertarianism' as a concept is rife with problems. You have to pick a winner. If you accept to 'pick the package' then you diminish your credibility. You are positing yourself as the 'honest party', but you can't be if you are contemporary libertarian, which means, only caring about advancing 'small government' agendas, but being indifferent to the divided philosophical values that divide people. This 'packaged' attempt to be all things to all people works for the 2 major parties; but it won't work for ACT or Focus NZ. The reason is clear I hope - the 2 major parties are 'extortion' based parties - both peddling fear. Labour is peddling concessions based on extorting wealth from the rich; and Conservative-Centre National Party, is peddling a defensive 'we'll protect you strategy', or 'we'll allow you to grow' on a good day. They are entrenched in this extortion-based two-party model. Trying to be the balance of power is not going to work given that the Maori Party is already doing that. This means the libertarians need to differentiate themselves, and that means 'growing market share', and that means being something the other parties are not. But since its different, you need to convey integrity. It does not matter if you have to divide your market share; at least you will convey a coherent system of values the people can trust.
3. Identity - The problem with 3 parties is that there is no point of difference. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advances 'small government'. Your problem is that people support small government for basically 3 different reasons (i) Indulgent, reactionary, subjective anarchistic reasons, (ii) intellectual Randian objective 'natural law' type reasons, (iii) intellectual utilitarian reasons, (iv) divine/Conservative party reasons.
The implication is that its very hard to integrate that set and preserve integrity because at the end of the day, the Labor Party, and National Party and even Greens, have a fair claim on these people.
4. Broad based policy is needed. Just looking at your website, and that's where journalists will look, one observes the following errors, aside from the pitiful website....
(a) Right wing is not a good term to adopt...its meaningless...better individualism, prosperity,
(b) Focus on 'producers and exporters' - its a mistake. You may as well call yourself an irrelevant farmers party. Farmers are the 'backbone of the country''. Perhaps, but the problem is they are 3% and you have not found a way to teach sheep to vote. Labour has. 

(c) Talk of 'foreign exchange rate' controls is the wrong way to go about policy for a party that purports to be 'free market'. You need to ask yourself why the currency is high and deal with the problem from that respect. All commodity currencies are high...to give you a hint.
5. Criticising the outsourcing of jobs. There is already a 'nationalist party', why are you going that path. That's not 'broad-based', that's just idiotic. Winston Peters already panders to the ignorant. Jobs are going offshore because its cheap to make things in China. If you increase the costs of living in NZ, then you have inflation. You will diminish jobs in NZ...the exact opposite of your intention. The cost of living will rise. It is true that there is a false economy in outsourcing jobs which will come back in 20 years, but the solution is not simply protectionism. The solution is not to identify the problem and not have a solution either.

The policy position of Focus NZ is actually not bad, at least from their opening page; the issue is more on the strategic positioning of the party. Of course there will be a need to see the detail. The problem with such small parties is that they tend to lack the lack of analytical skills to make a credible effort, and then they tend to fail on public presentation, which the major parties handle convincingly. Most voters are not analytical; but journalists will be voracious, so party speakers need to be. Going after list seats makes sense as a policy strategy until they identify credible public speakers.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

John Key on asset sales: Three Strikes And Your Out!!

Share |

In both October 2011 and January 2012 ( a year ago) I alluded to the threat of a closure of the Rio Tinto alumina smelter, and the prospect of the smelter closure impacting on the electricity market, and the forthcoming power industry privatisation. It loomed at as a compelling reason for the NZ government not selling the power assets - probably the only reason. But given the market outlook its a big one. On the 23rd March 2013, I gave John Key a third warning. Now, I know this guy reads my blog posts because he seems to respond to everything I say. On this occasion however he showed utter contempt for my advice. So what's the problem? Aside from the adage "Three strikes and your out", the problem is that:

The spectre of the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter closing means that 11% of the nation's electricity consumption is handing over the market. That is a big problem for several reasons:
1. The nation's population growth is flat
2. We are in the midst of a recession

The fundamentals for asset sale otherwise look pretty good; but this disposition will remain the case for the foreseeable future. In fact, there is good reason for expecting a future government to increase immigration, and to perhaps expect more Kiwis to return home. There is also the prospect in 5-10 years to expect some offshore resource development, with all the onshore developments that are associated with energy processing. But that's a long way off. In the near-term, we are looking at 10 years of subdued energy demand. More worrisome for Key is the push for reform of the Resource Management Act, which would reduce the cost of installing new generating capacity. This is less of a concern for large capacity additions; but there might be perceived to be a 'pent-up demand' for mini-generators like private wind farms, solar concentrators, mini- and run-of-river hydro schemes. The wind farms are particularly appealing in NZ, given the falling costs of installation, and growing acceptance.

The implication is that Rio Tinto is effectively using the power privatisation issue to "extort" a concession. The deal looks like this:
1. The government subsidies Rio Tinto in the long term to stay
2. The government takes a hit on the asset sale price

Ultimately, it might not even be the government who pays. The government might be setting up a lot of voters for failure; or will it be its reputation. I suspect the pain will be less if it just accepted the lower return because at least it can say, Kiwis had the opportunity to buy the asset. He can also argue that 'they got the price it was worth'. Well, true 'today'. But who knows what a bit of policy could do in the future?

Notwithstanding the benefits of selling the asset, it makes more sense to retain it for the time being. It would not do Key's reputation any arm by delaying the sale for 5 years. Interest rates will stay low, so whilst the government is getting a 10-12% return on investment, they are only paying 4-5% interest on the public sector debt. In the meantime, they might be able to raise economic activity. In fact, the global economy should start looking a lot more positive by that time.

John, you need to listen more. If I've told you once, I've told you three time. False pride go'eth before a fall. Your prospects for a third term looks pretty bad. Thanks for the legacy! Defer the privatisation. Great ideas have their time. Your timing is wrong.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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

What NZ should do with its privatisation proceeds

Share |

It seems inevitable that National Party is going to sell off some more power company assets - the prestigious hydro assets. Probably not the best timing since we are currently in a drought. Buyers will be thinking; oh dear, we better mark down the price for potential adverse climate change response. Maybe NZ is going to be a drier place? This on top of the possibility of Rio Tinto closing its Aluminium smelter.

The NZ government government is saying its going to pay down the state's debt. This makes a lot of sense for several reasons:
1. The debt levels of NZ are rather high
2. The terms of trade of NZ are rather favourable; and they can be expected to deteriorate as more food is grown offshore
3. Its actually a reasonably good time to sell off assets - particularly if the process can be used to encourage NZ savings. This is good because there are too few opportunities for NZ'ers to invest, and these are high-yielding assets.

NZ needs to take a look at Norway's approach to prosperity. It does not perform all the exploration work, and then give it away to the private sector. It places some value on its national assets; giving its people a 'windfall' and not the private, commercially-motivated operator who has the capacity to delimit its risk. The NZ has have to set the right 'terms and incentives', as otherwise no one will want to perform any work, and you don't want to be expropriating profits or changing terms down the track; that's just not fair to them.

The focus seems to be upon conventional oil & gas development in NZ - whether onshore or offshore. The much under-appreciated asset is methane hydrates - that sit on the seabed. Japan has been developing the engineering to extract these resources around Japan, and NZ could take a leap from its book in terms of developing an offshore gas hydrates market. There are several compelling reasons:
1. They are lucrative resources - large in size
2. Its easy extraction - a glorified form of dredging
3. The gas can be channelled into NZ's gas pipe infrastructure
4. NZ has a shortage of gas - which is contributing to the very high prices of it. More gas means the country can decommission its high cost Huntley coal-fired power station.
5. It can potentially displace a large import bill for petroleum into NZ

There is actually no better time to develop such energy resources because:
1. Interest rates are very low and set to stay low; so if you can make lucrative returns; this is a good time in use debt
2. The emerging markets are energy-poor in Asia so there is a great opportunity for those countries who get their political terms (i.e. sovereign rating) right; and keep them consistent.

There is a particular shortage of expertise and capital accumulation in small, consumption-driven countries like NZ. This can make the country vulnerable. This is not a deficiency in capitalism; its actually caused by socialism driving the value of emerging market labour down because of the distortive impacts of surplus Asian labour suddenly released onto global markets. This means governments are destined to need to finance  efforts at the margin to keep the economy secure. I don't like it; but its better to protect your labour than sabotage their preparedness to live; because ultimately dogmatic retention of ideas is a betrayal of those ideas because principles need to be held in context. Capitalism did not create the problem; and it will inevitably solve the problem quickest; but it requires the discretion and empathy of capitalists to 'cover' the threat posed by distortions to our values. This support will be required for at most 20 years; and if we upskill our labour, for much less time. This is why many of these European nations like Germany and Switzerland, Holland etc have been able to sustain their economic strength despite their high cost of living. They upskilled everyone rather than simply laying them off in the United States. In the US, you have this bitter intractable debate about who is responsible for the 'poor & destitute'. There is no discussion about what's causing it. One side says 'not my problem, work harder, get a job, get skilled' and the other side says 'can't live, can't get a job, need your money'. Its a false dichotomy because two parties - Conservatives and Democrats, and even some anti-intellectual libertarians, which is not going to be resolved unless these people learn some epistemology (a branch of philosophy). The problem is causeless assertions, i.e. Having unreasonable expectations, whether its the cause of other people's malaise, or a question of empathy (conceptual value judgement). Either way, it sux when these people drive the political debate.

Of course its the same issue in NZ - except there is less money; more reliance on foreign investment. This is why energy is critical, or why business and labour need to develop a greater respect and understanding for each other's position. Wealth holders deserve rights and recognition for their interests; and without the 'discretion' to retain it, to do as they please with it, there is not going to be a solution to this intractable problem. It starts with principles people - and it starts with your constitution - its starts with not having one...because they are a piece of dogma destined to undermine principled, contextual understanding of ideas.  Simple prescriptions don't work; they are too easily misappropriated by vested interests. That means no arbitrary 'representative democracy' because its not a rational process.

Asian property markets outperforming Japan Foreclosed Guide Philippines Property Guide
Profit from mining with Global Mining Investing eBook

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