You're buying some trains!

Yes according to the Dominion Post, NZ$115 million, partly made up of new locomotives, from the centre of excellence - China. Partly 17 "new" (secondhand ex. British) carriages to replace the ones for the long distance passenger services.

No you wont get a free ride on the trains, because although you own it, the vagaries of "public" ownership of the means of distribution means you have none of the benefits of private property ownership, and all of the costs of it. Now the carriages were already committed by Dr. Cullen, and to be fair if you split out the long distance passenger business, the TranzAlpine express is a profitable service that returns enough to pay for new trains. The TranzCoastal (Picton-Christchurch is more marginal), and the Overlander (Wellington-Auckland) we all know is probably at best breaking even on operating costs (with the drop in tourism hurting it).

This isn't helped by Green MPs virtually never using the services for travelling around the country.

Of course it also means that Kiwirail's competitors are not only subsidising the infrastructure, but now the motive power behind the trains. Think truck tractor units will be subsidised? Of course not.

What I found disturbing was that a new Treasury run infrastructure unit would "develop a 20year plan ranking projects according to their economic benefit". Given the first thing that has been approved are a bunch of locomotives, I wouldn't be trusting the evaluation of economic benefit for one moment.

If this unit approves electrification of Auckland's commuter rail network then it will be transparently clear that the appraisal methodology is nonsensical.

If this unit IS going to do good, perhaps it should also appraise based on "will the government spend this money better than the taxpayer" and "does this spending crowd out the private sector in the same sector". Then the unit will spend little time saying "no" and "yes" at least 90% of the time.

Bill, it's simple. The railway should borrow money itself to invest in capital that will generate a return on investment. OnTrack should develop an open access regime so that others can operate on the railway. The roads should be commercialised, and the power companies should raise capital privately. Give Telecom back its private property rights and amend your RMA reform to focus on private property rights. There is nothing else the government can do to assist in the development of infrastructure beyond getting the hell out of the way. Cutting company tax to 20% would be a good first step

Stuff the Times?

Hmm. Stuff now looks a bit like the Guardian website, or the Times website, or the Independent website. Well the headline fonts anyway.

What's that about? And will the Fairfax newspapers in New Zealand start collectively having content that even approaches the Times? (even the Guardian, commie rag as it is, has more quality content - and at least everyone KNOWS it is a leftwing paper, it doesn't pretend to be otherwise).

When the Church endorses grand theft

As one of my eccentric interests, I like to read about the peculiarities of dictatorships around the world. They are a great lesson in what to watch out for, and how not to run countries, and the stories that come from the excesses are often too ridiculous for fiction.

The two common themes of most dictatorships are theft and murder. Most combine both, it is merely a matter of scale. Some do more murder than theft, Pol Pot and Hitler being good examples of that. However some do more theft than murder.

Dictators take money from citizens through taxation, through appropriation of land, appropriation of businesses, granting privileges and monopolies to their own businesses and raiding aid budgets, as well as sly deals with foreign companies as pay offs to trade with nationalised industries. What they do with that money can defy the imagination.

So what has that got to do with the Vatican? Well the picture above is of the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire, with it standing out clearly on Google Earth. It is listed as the largest church in the world by the Guinness Book of Records. It could merely have been a monument to the more thieving and relatively less murdering autocrat Félix Houphouët-Boigny, President of Côte d'Ivoire from 1960 to 1993 when he died, with an estimated personal wealth of over US$7 billion.

The Basilica reflected his mad project in 1983 in shifting the capital from Abidjan to Yamoussoukro. It was a small agricultural town until he had built a series of large buildings and a airport capable of handling Concorde charters. The Basilica cost US$300 million in 1985 values, and took four years to build. Interesting for a country with a per capita GDP (PPP)of US$1,736 per annum, a literacy rate of just over 50%, and the 19th highest infant mortality rate in the world according to the CIA World Factbook. The Basilica is built of imported marble, and sits essentially in the middle of a jungle.

So what, an African dictator wasted money.

Well the Vatican didn't need to consecrate it (French - translated here). To give him his due, Pope John Paul II required that the government promise to build a hospital nearby before he would consecrate it. He laid the founding stone, which lays to this day as all that has been built of the hospital. Not that this would have made it ok - it is grand larceny. This behemoth of a building, is a grotesque palace paid for by thieving the wealth of the country, of people with an average life expectancy of 49 years. For the Vatican to essentially brush that to one side, and claim to be the bastion of morality for the globe is so ludicrously amusing if it weren't ignoring the tragic consequences. Even had the hospital been built, it wouldn't excuse this grand waste.

The Pope's dedication clearly endorses it:

" Par le Chef de l’Etat, cette basilique a été édifiée en hommage à Notre-Dame, en hommage au Christ rédempteur qui appelle tous les hommes à se rassembler dans l’unité de son Corps"

Treating it as if Houphouët-Boigny built it, then says by HIS generosity the social centre is being built next to it:

Et aussi, grâce à la générosité de Monsieur Félix Houphouët-Boigny, un centre social, la Fondation internationale Notre-Dame de la Paix

This is a church that according to Wikipedia:

"the president commissioned a stained glass window of his image to be placed beside a gallery of stained glass of Jesus and the apostles. This image of Félix Houphouët-Boigny depicts him as one of the three Biblical Magi, kneeling as he offers a gift to Jesus"

Imagine what a boost Houphouët-Boigny got by having essentially Vatican endorsement, not only for building the church, but also being a generous guy, with a quasi-religious Biblical significance!

No doubt the Vatican believed the thieving demagogue President when he said it would be a bullwark against Islam and animist religions. After all, that's what's important in the world isn't it? When Time magazine asked the Vatican about the money it said it was the President's money and land and "The size and expense of the building in such a poor country make it a delicate matter. But it is a project close to the President's heart, and he sees it as an experience of faith. We want to respect that."

Now you see what the Roman Catholic Church respects - the thieving of a poor nation by its faithful autocratic Catholic President, and the building of a monument to him with such money. Shame the Pope couldn't have simply consecrated some small modest building instead, as an act of defiance and protest, and asked for the people of Yamoussoukro to get a reticulated clean water supply and sewage system instead. That would only save lives not souls though.

Cromwell Crown Hotel London? Don't even think about it

Look it up on Google you'll see the website, you'll see numerous sites with the description of it being innocuous.

No.

This is a shithole, probably the dirtiest hotel in Britain according to the Sunday Times AND Trip Advisor. Surely the highlights of that review are:

"Most impressive is the smell. I’ve never come across anything quite like it — a swirling, gag-inducing mix of sweat and industrial-strength disinfectant, with elusive top notes of spice and decay"

"The mattress was a step into another, stomach-churning world: the eventful history of its long, long life was catalogued in a Jackson Pollock of bodily fluids. Among many other things, it looked as if someone had opened a vein in that bed. I wouldn’t have blamed them. "

"I decided to watch TV until unconsciousness arrived. The ancient set didn’t seem to work, though, so I felt back along the wire to make sure it was plugged in properly. Bad move. As I groped under the chipped MDF dressing table, I touched the plug — and the back cover promptly fell off, leaving the live wires exposed to my wandering fingers. There’s nothing like a 240-volt shock to put things in perspective."

"The phone by my elbow — yes, there is a phone — is encrusted with muck, as if a succession of people have jabbered into it while eating peanuts."

Now I might say anyone expecting much for £55 a night in London is having a laugh, but while you can expect small and basic, you should expect clean and safe. The Cromwell Crown is, quite possibly, the worst hotel in London. You cannot get a good deal to stay here.

Time to set students free

Clint Heine blogs about the next attempt to free membership of student unions from the absurd half-arsed legislation at the moment, whereby the majority of those who vote to compel all others to join a student union, regardless of whether or not that association represents their values.

It is a very simple issue, one that so clearly out the "we know what's best for you" authoritarian bullying of so many on the left. It is violence of a quite sinister kind to say you can't buy education from a university, without joining an organisation that does nothing that interests you and which represents the opposite of your views. However, I guess given that student unions have so often been the training grounds for Labour and Green party MPs, kind of makes it ok to force everyone to belong right?

Those that proclaim freedom of association suddenly go "oh um student unions are different". They argue "student unions provide lots of services for students", which of course you could say about ALL unions, or indeed most voluntary associations. The student union could simply exclude participation from those who aren't members, it's not that hard, and hardly an excuse to force people to belong to something they don't want to join. They argue "students advocate for students", which surely should be up to students. I could argue Libertarianz advocates for all individuals. Communist parties claim to represent all workers. The Maori Party no doubt claims to look after the interests of Maori.

Student unions could be organisations that provide facilities for students and advocate for them at the university, and make life at university more interesting. Most do some of that, but they also become rallying points for left wing activists. I was sick of student unions claiming to represent my views when they never did - they got 10% of students voting, and were chronic mismanagers of other people's money.

However, none of that actually matters. What matters is that you are not forced to join an association if you don't want to. Student unions should have to convince people to join them, not force them.

If you can't understand why force is wrong, then maybe I should take some money off you once a year, and tell you that you've joined an organisation you didn't want to join, and that it now represents you.

ACT'S Voluntary Student Membership Bill should be supported as government policy.

I did ask a while ago that all National candidates should be asked whether or not they support voluntary membership of university student unions.

ACT's bill will be a perfect way to out those National MPs who are lily livered wimps, that don't believe in freedom of association. Which is why John Key should declare it is party policy - let those who don't support it show themselves. Let's hope I am wrong, and none exist, after all, what better way to undermine one of the best force funded training schools of the Labour Party than to stop making students pay for them if they don't want to.

Ryugyong hotel being completed?

Not PC describes it as the worst building in the world. Wikipedia tells about its abortive history. The building that looks like a shard of glass has fallen from the sky or shot itself out of the ground.

However, someone has decided to upgrade it. Egyptian company Orascom is refurbishing it to make it a tower for cellular phone service. Quite how many customers it expects for the phones or the hotels is a mystery especially since most citizens are not permitted a private phone (for obvious reasons), and tourism is rather low. So now we have pictures of it being clad in glass (right).

Scaffolding at the top presumably to allow telecommunications equipment to be installed. Although the rusty crane that has been at the top for around 20 years appears to be there (imagine the worker who was in there - and had to get down).

It has been described as the worst property investment ever by the Times. It apparently will be finished by 2012, which tells me either Orascom knows something nobody else does, or it has far too much money.

Jobs summit outcomes?

I agree with most of what Not PC has already suggested here, here and here, as an alternative view to the Jobs Summit. These are:
- Government should get out of the way;
- Government should resist pressures for protectionism (one positive thing it COULD do is lobby hard internationally to reboot the Doha Round to make the biggest push for free trade since the 1950s);
- Production drives the economy, not consumption. Precious little government does encourages production. As Government spending takes money out of the hands of the productive, there should be further tax cuts. I'd suggest simply dropping company tax to 20%. What better signal to the world to locate to NZ?
- Abandon the minimum wage;
- Cut government salaries;
- Allow malinvestments to be liquidated;
- Restrict the Reserve Bank's ability to inflate the currency;
and so on.

However, in one respect I DO digress from PC, I do NOT believe all government spending is consumption. It is possible for government to spend money and generate more wealth than it spent. However, this really only happens in two areas:

1. Spending money on capitalising SOEs to expand. A very risky endeavour indeed. Singapore does it well, but you'd question whether NZ governments ever can do it well. Air NZ and Kiwirail being Labour's greatest dud investments.

2. Spending money collected from consumers of a government service to benefit those consumers beyond the cost of the spending. I mean roads. The private sector is almost entirely shut out of providing roads, so government taxes road users and can spend that money on improving roads to reduce delays, wasted fuel, accidents etc. For example, the widening of the highway through Paremata-Plimmerton north of Wellington generated savings in travel time, fuel etc of around $5 for every $1 spent on it. The dangerous side to this is politicians get excited about roads too much, and want to spend money on the ones that DON'T do that. Transmission Gully and the Helen Clark Memorial tunnel (aka Waterview Connection) are examples of this. Japan is littered with such bridges of the sort Henry Hazlitt referred to.

In short, if anyone is advocating spend up on projects, they need a seriously rigorous piece of economic analysis. Will the project really generate wealth based on proven demand, what is the risk contingency on this. If there is a reasonable risk it wont generate at least $2 for each $1 spent over a 20 year period then it isn't worth doing. Sadly the ideas that have come out include the insane idea for a cycleway (although if the government was rational about Kiwirail it mind find it has plenty of corridors for one) and the Green Party's rather predictable favourites.

However, regardless of the economic efficiency of government spending it does not justify it morally. Theft is still theft. I undoubtedly think I can spend your money better than you can, but it hardly justifies me doing so does it?

Finally, it is tragically notable that the leftwing commentary on the Jobs Summit has been virtually nothing about substance or policy (with the exception of the Greens. The Greens played the identity politics card and then ideas), but about identity politics. The Standard showed pictures of men, said everyone has an ideology (true), damns the cycleway (but forgets that Labour started pouring money into cycleways itself) and makes a few comments about what was said. However no new ideas. Idiot Savant goes on about men, and then damns the cycleway (yet this is Green Party policy), and goes on about identity politics again. Hand Mirror thinks it shows John Key does not value women. Apparently women can't be represented by organisations that are open to them and include them.

Not enough women, not enough people of different races. Apparently if you have a vagina or differently coloured skin it means you have different ideas. Those don't come from a brain. If you don't feel represented there, then say so - it isn't because there aren't enough women, Maori, Koreans, blondes, cross-dressers, asthmatics, pianists, vegetarians, balloon fetishists, dancers, nudists or twins - it is about ideas. The truth is that if the summit was full of leftwing women, which would surely cheer many on, the ideas are unlikely to be about getting government out of the way of the productive.

Most of those at the summit were there because it showed they were wanting to work with the government, and because they wanted some booty from the rest of you.

Like I said before, the Fourth Labour Government had an economic summit conference shortly after it was elected, and promptly ignored most of what came out of it. That seems the appropriate precedent.

UPDATE: I see the whingy 23yo unemployed woman who thought the world owed her a living at the Lange Economic Summit Conference, Jane Stevens, retains her Marxist view of the world in the Herald. Given she works for an organisation partly supported by taxpayers and ratepayers, I'm hardly surprised. Shame her passion and commitment didn't teach her that the government produces nothing, and that the free market generates wealth.

Sending freedom messages to North Korea

A Japanese organisation advocating for victims of abduction by North Korea is calling for people to send spam faxes to North Korean fax numbers, in order to facilitate change and revolution.

The blog post above includes the fax numbers, suggests you send a message in Korean only with a photo of Kim Jong Il - because it is illegal to throw away images of the General Secretary. The message should not be confrontational, but be about sending factual information, making the recipient think, and it is important the faxes be individualised.

It IS an innovative approach. Takes a bit of effort to get some Korean written by those who do not know the language, and it isn't cheap. North Korea charges a lot of money to terminate any fax calls in its country (after all that's foreign currency it can earn from overseas telcos).

Imagine if you were in a totalitarian state, knew little better and received a fax from overseas that told you that some of the things your government told you were a lie. Would you tell anyone else? Would you keep it secretly? Would you send a response?

Obama's deficit, spend and tax budget

So President Obama has released his budget. If you believe the hype it would be different, well I guess it is:

- US$1.75 trillion deficit. You just can't begin to imagine how big that is. 12.3% of GDP. He's going to reduce it to US$533 billion by 2013. Wont hear him talking about mortgaging children though;
- He wants to spend US$3.6 trillion, around US$25,000 per taxpayer. However he says he doesn't believe in big government;
- He wants to spend US$634 billion on a health care reserve fund, to introduce socialised health care, though you might wonder whether if every taxpayer spent that around US$2000 a head on health insurance they would be more than covered;
- He wants to increase taxes on the rich (spit on them all of course) those earning over US$250,000 to around 40%;
- He wants to cut military spending, largely as a result of withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan;
- He wants to create a cap and trade programme for CO2 emissions that the Federal government will profit from.

Change you can believe in? Or is it just change people are left with when they and their children face this monumental debt to repay? He says he doesn't believe in big government. Who is he kidding?

£15 London-New York return plus taxes

Yep, that's where airfares have gone. Virgin Atlantic announced today it was selling seats in riff raff class at the lowest marginal price in ages. £15 is barely enough to cover the cost of loading an additional meal.

Now to be fair, another £50.30 comprise taxes and levies from the US side, and £55.30 comprises taxes and levies in the UK, plus £106 Fuel surcharge (which goes to Virgin Atlantic).

So it's really £121 fare plus taxes. Still this is a fare to simply recover costs, and let's be clear airlines don't make money on the Atlantic in economy class. A full economy class section loses money for Virgin Atlantic if it carries nearly no one in premium economy class and upper class.

So it's not just the drop in bankers flying the Atlantic.

and don't forget, landing slots at Heathrow are allocated somewhat on a "use it or lose it" provision, so Virgin has to fly the flights to hold onto the slots - which of course are worth a fortune when there isn't a recession!

Jobs Summit?

I largely loathe meetings, unless it is an occasion to tell people what I think and what to do. If I want to know what others think, I'd rather read or hear about it one on one. The bigger the meeting, the less productive it is, because the intelligent people have their time curtailed by the fools.

Having a talkshop about how to create jobs is like having any sort of meeting.

Meetings are where people talk about doing something, not actually doing it.

Imagine a reproduction summit interested in boosting the number of babies. Think how much more productive people would be simply going out and doing it.

So ask yourself this. Are the people at the Jobs Summit (and those complaining they haven't been invited) people who ever create jobs anyway? Of those handful who do (business), wouldn't they be better off being entrepreneurial, or do they see this as a nice taxpayer subsidised excuse to network with others?

I remember the fourth Labour Government, which had Summit Conferences on the economy, Maori and even railways. None of which did ANY good, except make the unproductive feel warm and fuzzy. You see after all that, David Lange, Roger Douglas and co did what was best for the economy, ignoring most of the views expressed at the Economic Summit Conference.

John Key and Bill English could do worse than just sit down with Roger Douglas and listen. They might learn something.

Dr Cullen and Air NZ

Well it is worthwhile noting both Air NZ's drop in profit and the pending retirement of Dr Cullen. Especially given it is entirely because of Dr. Cullen that you all have a share in Air NZ's future, a piece of history the left conveniently whitewashes over. You see what happened back when Air NZ was in crisis is something that SHOULD have brought Labour down in the 2002 election, but Bill English was too inept, and the mainstream media lacked sufficient journalistic talent and nouse to research it properly. Fortunately, almost all of the relevant papers are now on the Treasury website.

The pro-Labour history around this is simple:
- Air NZ made a bad investment in Ansett Australia;
- Air NZ needed a capital injection to save Ansett and expand its business;
- Two airlines offered this, Singapore Airlines and Qantas;
- As the government was considering both deals, the airline went into crisis;
- This was exacerbated by 9/11 and the global drop in air travel;
- Had Labour let things go, Air NZ would have gone into receivership, damaging tourism and resulting in the end of long haul flights with a NZ brand on them, hurting tourism further. There wouldn't have been flights to many centres in NZ;
- Dr Cullen bravely saved the airline, but required it dump the Australian liability Ansett;
- Then Dr Cullen wisely sought an international partner for the airline in the form of Qantas, because it "makes sense" to have a single South Pacific dominant carrier against the "world".

In other words, the private sector cocked up, and while the government was considering bids for investing in the airline, it was going to fold, and Dr Cullen saved the day. Much of that is nonsense.

That version of history misses out a few facts, facts that demonstrate that the whole situation came about because first the Australian then the New Zealand government stuffed up:

- Air NZ invested in Ansett Australia because the Australian government reneged on a deal for an "open skies agreement" between Australia and NZ. Air NZ originally wanted to set up its own Australian domestic operation in competition with Ansett and the then Australian Airlines. The Australian government reneged on the deal (the famous fax from Laurie Brereton to Maurice Williamson) because it feared it would reduce the price it would get for selling Qantas (which was subsequently to merge with Australian Airlines);

- The Australian government made it clear that it would far prefer Air NZ invest in an established airline - but it was not allowed to invest in Qantas. So Air NZ bought 50% of Ansett in 1996, but was not permitted managerial control at that level of investment and Ansett was required to provide various "social services" (unprofitable routes);

- Increasing frustration with the management of Ansett saw Air NZ finally decide to buy the whole thing out. However it paid too much, it outbid Singapore Airlines as it had aspirations to grow to the size of Qantas. What it found with Ansett was an airline in desperate need of restructuring and new capital;

- Singapore Airlines, which already owned 25% of Air NZ sought to increase its investment to 49% of the airline group, as a capital injection in June 2001. This was unanimously supported by the Air NZ board, but needed support from the Kiwi shareholder - the Crown. Official advice was that issues from such foreign ownership were manageable and that it appeared this was the best option, but the government needed to act promptly.

- Qantas lobbied the New Zealand and Australian governments to oppose Singapore Airlines increasing its investment in Air NZ. Obvious of course that it was seeking to kneecap its biggest competitor. Official advice in June 2001 was against the proposal on competition grounds. The Air NZ board rejected the proposal and Singapore Airlines refused to sell its shareholding, effectively making the proposal academic. Qantas continued to lobby for it;

- In July Cabinet REJECTED the option preferred by Air NZ and officials, preferring either a part state/part Singapore Airlines shareholding or a Qantas takeover;

- Air NZ wrote to Dr Cullen saying that "it would seem that the Government has embarked on a high risk and speculative course that has the danger of putting the Air New Zealand group at risk". The then Acting Chairman warned of the "grave financial risk faced by Air New Zealand Ltd as a result of the current uncertainties;

- Dr Cullen tried to pursue a half and half option allowing some Singapore Airlines investment along with some Crown investment, which was bypassed as the Crown bought out the airline.

Oh and as a side note, the economic geniuses at the Greens believed Air NZ was NOT in a dire financial straight and opposed any new foreign investment, but promoted taxpayer shareholding.

Dr Cullen helped bankrupt Air NZ, because of his peculiar pursuit of the Qantas deal, and the delays in approving the Singapore Airlines investment proposal. You might ask yourself why Dr Cullen didn't like money from Singapore, but liked it from Australia. Not xenophobia surely?

While it is all a bit more complicated than that, the truth is that the slow progress of Dr Cullen and the interference of Qantas has cost the NZ taxpayer dearly, as well as Air NZ. The Greens didn't help either. Air NZ warned that the government's approach created grave risks, and it was right.

So when Dr Cullen steps down, it is worth remembering part of his legacy - the legacy of the lecturer who couldn't make a critical business decision, and surrendered a major strategic opportunity for Air NZ to be a significant airline.

and of course don't forget the Kiwirail deal of the century!

Obama slippery when cliched

So President Obama has done another apparently "inspiring speech". Count the cliches:

- We will rebuild, we will recover;
- What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more;
- Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here;
- Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity;
- But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater;
- History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas;
- For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.;
- For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill;
- Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause.

Blah blah. What REALLY is he doing? Propping up state education, subsidising the alternative energy sector and "reforming" health care. THAT's his plan. He shows NO understanding of why the economic crisis has occurred, making it an excuse to pursue his statist plans for energy, education and health.

He talks drivel about how the economic crisis occurred. "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before". So what? That didn't create the recession, the price of oil is right down again.

"The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform" It is also some of the best health care in the world, people don't languish on waiting lists and while it needs reform, he remains empty on what that means. It isn't going to be free for free.

"Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for" Indeed, but he opposes competition in the education sector.

"we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before" yes and you've cut spending and Federal debt, hang on... oh and yes all individuals are to blame aren't they, justifies anything you do.

"we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election" You mean like when you spend a fortune of future taxpayers' money to bail out businesses and "invest" in subsidies? What's this "we"?

"Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market" such as? Nice leftwing rhetoric and that's it.

"People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway" However you want to bail them all out from their stupidity yet you talk responsibility??

"I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t" However I don't mind it at all, and don't have any other solutions.

"I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships" and will do so more in the future. You're guessing.

"More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit" Generating what economic benefits? Yep you don't know do you?

"I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent." That website is so shallow it isn't funny.

" the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education" Unlike property rights, law and order, roads, services, manufacturing and primary production. Why these three? Nothing.

"Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders" Code for "I'm an economic nationalist who believes in picking winners with subsidies".

" I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America." China's laughing, Al Gore is wetting himself in onanistic frenzy in his mansion.

" I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward." Easy to spend other people's money to prop up a failed sunset industry AND claim to be an environmentalist doing it.

"an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy" I believe the phrase "his country" would be more accurate if "his" was replaced with "young" and country had only one syllable.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans" Note the term "break". As if they get out paying less than everyone else, when they pay much much more. The use of "children" to tug at heart strings.

He promises to cut spending, yet spends more. He talks of warning of protectionism, but has been caught out promoting it, and as a Senator positively voted for it. He talks about recovery, but is seeking to support the unionised federal education system, and fails to understand that government hinders growth and investment.

It's slippery, devious and it isn't change - it is a born again Carteresque socialism that believes in spending your way out of disaster, and talks about debt, without doing anything about it. He talks about avoiding earmarks, but so much of his recovery package was about propping up many Democrat cause celebres.

Obama can make a speech sound good, can plaster it with cliches that inspire the shallow personality cult followers, but behind it all should scare people. Scare them that the President thinks the crisis is about renewable energy, upgrading government schools and healthcare reform. He's so far off the mark it isn't funny, and his collectivist rhetoric should send chills down the spines of those who DON'T believe they borrowed too much, DON'T want to commit to another year of education and DON'T believe they owe anyone anything because of their existence.

UPDATE: Mark V. rightly points out in the comments that Obama's statement implying the USA invented the automobile is false, as it was invented in Germany and credited to Karl Benz. Will the left damn Obama for being ignorant and non-worldly for this mistake, as they would have thrown at Bush, or will they forgive the messiah, like he was forgiven for referring to 57 states? Of course, it will be forgotten and anyone reminding you of it in around 3.5 year's time will be treated as racist.

The filthy war on drugs

Will de Cleene blogs on the case of a 92 year old woman killed by the Atlanta Police during a botched drugs raid. So what happened?

- An officer got a "no knock" warrant to enter this woman's house, in other words smash in to the house, based on evidence that he falsified, following a fake tipoff;
- The officers smashed their way into the house, the elderly woman shot her own gun off as a warning shot, because she thought she was suffering a home invasion;
- They then sprayed her with bullets, and left her to die;
- Marijuana was then planted in her basement, to cover up what they did.

Another victim of the war on drugs, a victim of the maniacal attempts at performance quotas for Police to catch "criminals".

However, I guess it's ok to most people, as long as she isn't your mother, grandmother, wife, sister or friend.

Hell in Swat - the Taliban's province in Pakistan

I wrote a week ago about the appeasement of the Taliban in Pakistan. Now David Khattakis of the Sunday Times is the first British journalist to enter the Taliban controlled zone, and he calls it a wasteland of blood and fear. Read his article, some of what he describes are:

- one can still see the remnants of the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation’s flagship hotel. The building was blown up by the Taliban because it was being used for “un-Islamic activities”;
- The women’s clothes markets are either closed or show banners proclaiming: “Women are banned from entering this market.”;
- Barbers have pasted hand-written posters to their shop fronts saying: “Shaving a beard is unIslamic. We have stopped shaving beards. Please don’t visit the shop for a shave";
- all girls over the age of eight are banned from lessons and, in a symbol of the Taliban’s hatred of learning, the public library in Mingora has been wrecked;
- Snooker clubs and video game arcades have also been banned.

It banned English films on the privately owned cable TV network, then music channels, then any content with music, then content in local languages before finally shutting it down.

The appeasement of the Taliban in Pakistan is deeply disturbing, for it is unlikely to stop there. The vision of a Taliban ruled Pakistan may sound far fetched to some, but so was an Islamist Iran 40 years ago. I dearly hope the Pakistan government is simply preparing itself for a solid invasion and to recapture this territory - and it would be nice if there was broad Western support for this. The Taliban is a despicably evil organisation with stone age philosophy, it's about time that all friends of a liberal modern civilisation declared unerring support for its destruction.

David Walliams finds cure for depression

His 18 year old girlfriend reports the Daily Mail.

Her name is Lauren Budd, she's a model, they've been going out for a few months, and well, he's happy. No doubt most men will think good on him, lots of women will hate him, but he's having fun, she's having fun. For a man who is clearly troubled, but is funny and is rather well off, who can be too surprised?

I happened to see him in a corner shop in Belsize Park, London a couple of years ago, although was rather furtive. Unsurprising given the stalker he had at the time!

Britain's Islamist underworld

Idiot Savant rightly praises the release of Binyam Mohamed who was allegedly tortured in Pakistan and Morocco before being sent to Guantanamo Bay. David Aaronovitch of the Times agrees with the release given the maltreatment of Mohamed, though he is sceptical about what Mohamed was doing, and is more concerned about appeasement of Islamists by the UK.

He quotes a former MI6 agent, Alastair Crooke:

Crooke's point seemed to be that we in the West could learn a lot from Islamism, since it was, in some ways, morally superior to our fly-blown, materialist, individualist societies. Islamism, as practised by Hezbollah, Hamas and President Ahmadinejad, was saying something profound “about the essence of man”. He went on: “It is not just about violence or a whimsical reaction to modernity, it is a new way of seeing our existence...” Islamists wanted “a society based on compassion and justice”.

As Aaronovitch says "Then a piece of apologia that would have impressed any old Communist: “There are many mistakes... the Iranians would admit this isn't the finished article.”"

Meanwhile, former Islamist Ed Husain is concerned that mosques in the UK are run by first generation migrants:

Britain's mosques are run by men who are physically in Britain, but psychologically in Pakistan. They retain their village rituals and sectarianism, and prevent the growth of an indigenous British Islam. And for as long as young Muslims are confused about whether they belong in Britain or elsewhere, we risk handing them over to preying extremists in our midst.

Meanwhile those training to be imams and elders are overwhelmingly in seminaries that are Islamist in outlook:

Of the 27 or so Muslim seminaries or dar ul uloom in Britain, 25 come from the austere, Deobandi tradition - the preferred school of the Taleban. So while British soldiers risk their lives in Afghanistan, in British Muslim seminaries we allow the teaching of intolerance, unequal treatment of women, religious rigidity, the banning of music and theatre, and an end to free mixing of the sexes.

So how less than dominant is moderate Islam then? Husain is concerned that UK mosques and government ignorance about them is providing an environment to foster Islamist bigotry.

The Daily Telegraph reported in the weekend that some Muslim schools in the UK teach kids to never befriend Christians and Jews, and ban music, chess and cricket.

Check out this school:

Al-Mu'min Primary School in Bradford is linked to the al-Mu'min journal, which carries material from schoolchildren. Its website teaches that Western culture is "evil", photographs are "an evil practice of the unbelievers", and that "the person who plays chess is like one who dips his hand in the blood of a swine".

But here's a sample of the Ofsted report: "Al-Mumin Primary School provides a good education for its pupils and ensures that they have good attitudes and a very good work ethic... The provision made for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils is outstanding."

According to the local Telegraph and Argus paper in Bradford, the links have been taken down, but the school did not respond to queries. The al-Mu'min website is also down.

Of course, I firmly believe private schools can do as they wish, as long as they receive no funding or privileges from the state, but if they are fomenting treason, and promoting bigotry, shouldn't it be transparent? Shouldn't they be subject to scrutiny? After all, if the BNP wanted to set up schools that taught not to associate with non-whites, and promoted an ideology of cultural superiority (and denigration of others), you think that would be tolerated for one moment?

Let's call it a debt

So those who committed these crimes, have to pay it off. In full. As a charge upon their earnings.

For one step that could be constructively taken against criminals is suing them for compensation, and if they do not have enough assets to pay, then make it a debt upon their earnings until it is paid. This is called internalising the externalities of crime.

Imagine if the useless shits who went on their vandalism spree of NZ$30,000, split five ways, had to pay NZ$6,000 each. If they couldn't make it within 12 months they'd be charged 15% interest p.a. on whatever they paid afterwards. Up to half of their income, including benefits could be required to pay for this.

In the Shut the F Up file

Whaleoil reports on how unemployed ex.never was a Cabinet Minister, Judith Tizard, is slamming the government for delaying enactment of the Copyright Act amendment that she screwed up.

Radiolive reports Tizard saying "artists and musicians are being robbed of their livelihoods by illegal downloads"

Given that:
a. Labour and commentators across the political spectrum are damning the appalling mismanagement of this issue, essentially by her; and
b. She was part of a government that has as its raison d'etre robbing people of their livelihoods in part to pay for the livelihoods of artists and musicians who couldn't earn a living selling their art and music to willing buyers...

I think it's time for Judith to do what she said on election night, and have a quiet life.

Protection of intellectual property is very important, but Tizard has proven she doesn't have the competence to be respected on this issue. Other people are trying to fix your mess Judith. A little humility would go a long way.

Amnesty silent over Hamas encouraging child martyrs

So Amnesty International, once a proud defender of free speech, the right to a fair trial and an open liberal society is now calling for an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas. It calls the rocket attacks by Hamas, and Israel's overwhelming response both illegal and immoral.

The fact Hamas started it is, of course, besides the point.

However, what particularly grates is the political imperative behind Amnesty in making this call. It knows it will go nowhere, primarily because the US wont isolate Israel. Imagine if Israel DID suffer an arms embargo. Might that embolden Iran? Which wants Israel wiped off the map, and is developing a nuclear weapons capability. No, Amnesty is silent about that. Wouldn't Hezbollah then start attacks? No, Amnesty doesn't care about that. Idiot Savant thinks it would help. It's incredibly naive to think that. Hamas is fundamentally evil, it should send shivers through the bones of any liberal minded person in the West to think of such people gaining power - much like neo-Nazis. Sadly, the left just sees someone fighting Israel and turns a blind eye.

More importantly, has Amnesty raised concerns about how Hamas encourages children to be martyrs?



No. Amnesty KNOWS the debate wont be about isolating Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations that if they ever got into power would be egregious violators of human rights. They would oppress non-Muslims, they would discriminate against women, and brutally suppress non-Islamist politicians, media or speech. Amnesty wont say that.

So fuck them. I'll tell the next naive student who asks me to support Amnesty that I wont as long as it refuses to campaign against Islamism, and while we are at it, it remains next to silent about North Korea's gulags which enslave children.

Farewell to the wolf in sheep's clothing

The departure of Jeanette Fitzsimons from Parliament has produced understandable fawning from the Greens, as she was an asset to that party. An asset only due to the inept vapidness of so much of the media that this earnest, hard working, but not very bright woman is seen as the most trusted politician in the country. The left are uncritical of her, and DPF hasn't a bad thing to say which Cactus Kate rightfully pulls him into line over.

While the Greens obviously love her, the way most of the media have not applied scrutiny over this MP absolutely disgusts me.

The public face of Jeanette Fitzsimons demonstrates that mental emptiness in the media, as public sector officials I knew who dealt with her found her honest in her intentions, someone who listened, but also not the sharpest knife in the kitchen. Although she could bring out the knife when she wanted to.

Her image hid the fact that she led a party that has been one of the biggest cheerleaders for initiating force. The peace and non-violence of the Greens are an absolute farce, as it is the party that most avidly promotes the state increasing the scale and extent of force it applies to people and their property.

I fisked her a while back because of her sheer stupidity:

- She doesn't understand trade. I recall many years ago she once said how bad it was that ships went from country to country, passing each other, when people could just enjoy the things they make in their own country;
- She worships at the altar of the religion of rail. She pushed to make you subsidise long distance passenger trains that she, of course, never uses. Seen her use the Overlander from Wellington to Auckland lately?;
- She led a campaign of irrational scaremongering about genetic engineering, that is akin to saying electricity should be kept in the lab because it hasn't been proved safe yet. ;
- It is ten years since she said it was the last Christmas you could eat potatoes you could trust;
- She doesn't believe in private property rights, talking often about "our land";
- She promotes the anti-nuclear hysteria;
- She promotes hysteria over global warming and the belief that the only way to address it is through austerity, not prosperity and technology;
- She demands private companies be split up to allow competition, but state ones be made into statutory monopolies;
- She spread malicious lies that Don Brash wanted to smash Maori culture and force women to be subservient to men.

There is much more than can be laid at the feet of the wolf in sheep's clothing. She looks like and generally talks like she wouldn't hurt a fly, but the truth is that she has been a force against reason, against science, against economics, against individual rights and has happily used personal attacks when she saw fit to do so.

She is a simpering vapid scaremongerer. New Zealanders should be pleased this nice but dim woman has not been in Cabinet, and has at the most dabbled around the edges of power rather than been in control of it.

A little bit of scrutiny might have asked why someone who says:

“We want more people to share the secret of real happiness and satisfaction in life, which comes not from having more but from being more, and from being part of a society that values all its members, and values the land, the water and the other species with which we share them.”

wants to use force to do this.

So farewell Jeanette, you've been very lucky. However, not as lucky as everyone else who has largely avoided the crippling irrational authoritarianism of your policies.

!

Well that worked

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Another reason to avoid Ryanair

Ryanair launches in-flight mobile phone calls

Now I've never flown this airline that exists largely for the lager lout, chav, cheap weekend student and typical Brit drink/shag hedonistically weekend market (and to be fair all the eastern European workers who live in the UK and rightly prefer to fly instead of getting a bus to Romania - yes you can get a bus from London to Romania!).

Some of those using it paying bugger all moan incessantly about why they got no ground service, why Ryanair reschedules flights at times that the trains and buses from the airport stop running, they can't board because they are too late checking in when it is 90 minutes before the flight. You get what you pay for.

I've read enough about Ryanair to know that while Michael O'Leary is a business genius for running a safe cheap and nasty airline, it isn't aiming at those of us willing to pay a little more to fly from airports close to where we leave and where we are going, who have lounge access, business class checkin and luggage allowance as a right with airline alliances, and don't want to be crammed into the tightest possible seats with the demographics listed above.

Frankly when I can book weekends away with BA, Swiss, Lufthansa or other proper airlines for less than £150 return in Europe at good times, why use Ryanair? Especially when even business class within Europe (typically a huge ripoff as the seats are worse that Air NZ premium economy, but you get an empty seat beside you, and a proper meal) now can have surcharges of only £80 each way. I can check in online, choose seats, have decent baggage allowance, pay however I want, have lounge access and pay hardly any different from the likes of Ryanair. Why?

Business air traffic in Europe has collapsed, and airlines serving Heathrow know they lose their valuable slots if they don't use them after a while. So they rather fly empty planes than surrender slots that are typically worth tens of millions of pounds if they can sell the slots. So proper airlines have many cheap deals.

So why the hell do I want to sit on a plane while some onanist says "Hi i'm on the plane" at the top of his lungs like some retarded child excited about the amazing technology that allows him to talk to people far away while being 9km above the earth.

There have been phones on planes for years.

I can only hope that proper airlines resist this, especially in the front end where the money is made. I know Emirates has joined the mobile phone club, which is another reason to not use it (besides it not offering frequent flyer points for Star Alliance or One World). Most such airlines have phones at those seats as it is, which are rarely used, indicating how little demand there really is for this. An alternative is to set aside a small area for people to use to make calls, like the lounge on the Qantas A380.

One of the most annoying features of modern life are ring tones, especially the fools who don't switch off the common bog standard ones. Nokia ones are particularly bad.

So good one Ryanair, attract all the people who want to use their mobiles on planes - and help ensure the proper airlines with service, remain free of noise.

No future for rail freight?

I'll give credit to the Green Party Frogblog for the post "The End of Kiwirail?" which shows that someone from the party at least went to hear David Heatley from the NZ Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation talk about"The Future of Rail in New Zealand". That presentation is now on Powerpoint here.

It is well worth a read.

The presentation addresses some simple myths about rail:
1. Rail network shrinked due to privatisation. Wrong. Almost all line closures were under state ownership when rail had a statutory monopoly on long haul freight!
2. Rail stopped being viable after free market reforms. Wrong, it stopped being consistently financially viable by 1945. It short pockets of profitability since then.
3. Track Maintenance was run down after privatisation. Wrong, it was already being run down in public ownership, track was run down more, but sleeper replacement under private ownership increased.
4. Rail is worth a lot as an asset. Wrong. The NZ$12 billion book value of rail on the Treasury accounts is a nonsense, equating it to all other SOEs combined (e.g. 3 power companies, Transpower, NZ Post) which all make profits. Most of the value is based on a replacement cost if it was built today, which of course would never be done. I'd argue it is probably worth 4% of that at best.
5. Rail only needed rescuing after privatisation. Wrong. It has been rescued several times before, then the commercialisation was reversed because of political pressure. It has long had serious economic viability issues.
6. Rail is good to reduce accidents, congestion and environmental problems Wrong. "the optimal level of externalities is not zero – at some point it becomes more expensive to lower them than the welfare created by their further abatement" Rail related deaths only slightly lower than truck related. No evidence that it reduces congestion. Sea freight is twice as fuel efficient than rail, but little interest in that.

Like I said before, the presentation basically says that rail is not as fuel efficient as is quoted, and that only 30% of the current network handles 70% of the freight. It suggests concentrating on the main trunk, and lines to the Bay of Plenty and the West Coast.

Sadly, Frog doesn't think the presentation answered concerns about peak oil or climate change, or if you "think trains are cool". Let's ignore that last remark as just light hearted, not a basis for sound public policy.

In the comments I have battled a bit with most others who worship the religion of rail, and give largely highly misinformed comments. One that, to be fair, I did once believe in before I did extensive work in the transport sector, because I quite like trains. However, the overwhelming evidence sadly doesn't match my personal nostalgia to keep lots of railway lines open with trains on them - as I can hardly justify making people pay for something they don't use.

If you want a bit more, check out this two part report (Part one, part two) the Treasury received a few years on the economics of rail in New Zealand. It starkly shows that compared to the US and Australia, the volumes and distances for rail in New Zealand are small, and fuel is only a small proportion of costs.

The rail religion remains a faith not a fact based initiative. I'd just like to know why environmentalists think subsidising a dairy product exporter, a coal exporter and logging companies is good? The entire West Coast railway network is dependent on exporting a dirty fossil fuel to Asia!

Hide makes a start on local government

Kiwiblog cheers on Rodney Hide's speech to Local Government NZ. Now I saw how Local Government NZ worked with the Labour government, and it was a very symbiotic relationship. Local Government NZ wanted more power, Labour gave it more power (not as much as LGNZ wanted). Local Government NZ wanted more money from central government, Labour gave it a some more money. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to support its policy initiatives in housing, transport and environment, Local Government NZ did. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to help it rewrite legislation on local government, Local Government NZ was involved in partnership to help develop the Local Government Act 2002.

So when Hide says:

"I don't represent councils.I represent the people whose hard work and savings pay the rates"

About time!

"First, I want to keep rate rises down and encourage you to focus on core activities. On the necessities, not the luxuries" So I will be pushing for councils to accept that rates rises should be capped at the rate of inflation, or less. Sure, councils for good reason may need to increase rates faster than inflation"Well I'd cap rates permanently to squeeze local government out of non core activities, and encourage a progressive disengagement. I can't think of a good reason to increase a property tax faster than inflation, especially when property values grew beyond inflation until very recently. Nevertheless, it is a better direction than the past.

"what should be the core roles of councils ...Providing public services such as rubbish removal, road maintenance, parks, libraries, and light handed-regulatory controls."

Rubbish removal can be privately done, road maintenance of local streets could eventually be privately done, parks can be privately managed, as can libraries. Regulatory controls should only be the application of private property rights. However, if all councils just did this we would all be a lot better off.

"When I look at the expanding breadth of activities that councils engage in, the answer must surely be, "Businesses should be doing this - not the council."

Indeed!

"Even if it is a job appropriate for local government, the answer may still be "No, our ratepayers can't afford it."

In fact it may better be, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

"Ratepayers want to know who is responsible for council decisions - and who to hold to account"

Sadly all the transparency in the world wont get back money wasted, but it should put people in fear of losing their jobs.

"I want to see respect for private property rights. I want the freedom of individual New Zealanders enhanced."

Wonderful stuff!! When did you last hear that? Will National Party Cabinet Ministers say this?

However then he talks about changes to the RMA and the Building Act, which um aren't exactly about private property rights and individual freedom.

"It's taking nine months to get a resource consent to put in a cable car ... so that an elderly lady can get to her house easily up a steep cliff from the street."

Exactly. Sheer nonsense.

So I expect Local Government NZ is scared, fearful its members are about to get their hands tied, their petty fascist ways over and the age of nanny cities and nanny districts is over. It wont be, but it sure sounds like the tide is changing.

Now read the speech by Sandra Lee, the first Minister of Local Government when the Labour/Alliance coalition was elected in 1999.

"I believe our communities are, overall, very well served by their local authority elected members. I have yet to meet a district, city or regional councillor, or community board member, who was not deeply committed to the service of his or her local community."

Well she was one, she'd wouldn't want to say there is always some deadwood out there and blithering idiots.

"I agree with your President that the powers it (new Local Government Act) contains should, in general, be more enabling and empowering rather than just an updated version of the prescription contained in the current legislation"

Do more not less!

"One of the more unusual aspects of our work as elected representatives is that we get to spend other people's money"

Shock! Really? Unusual is it? I thought that was state socialism par excellence. Indeed the nonsense of accountability through local democracy is palpable, as most local body consultation responses are from vested interest groups wanting the loudest voice - not the average ratepayer fed up with being fleeced and pushed around.

The change in attitude is to be welcomed. If only Hide can do as he says it will help, as a first step. It is time to roll back the creeping hands of local government, and no Labour style partnership with local government will enable that. Rodney is going to have to get legislation drafted to not only cap rates, but cap what local authorities do.

The report at No Minister about how the ARC wasted $1.7 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on the David Beckham exhibition soccer game is only the latest example of why the "power of general competence" of local authorities is to many ratepayers a rather sick joke. They have the power, but how often do they have to show rank incompetence?

State predatory pricing kills business

and that means private schools.

Cactus Kate points out that if private schools fail because parents can't afford to pay for a private education, then the state sector couldn't handle the numbers.

She's right, but the solution is not to fix the state sector. The solution is to end the unfair competition of state schools, which everyone is forced to pay for, against private schools which get funding only from those using them. State schools are the French farms of the education sector, bloated, inefficient, heavily subsidised, and their output has guaranteed markets because of protectionism.

Parents sending their kids to private school pay twice. The PPTA socialists don't give a damn about that. They are ideologically opposed to competition in education, and opposed to their members ever being accountable for their performance. The PPTA would only be happy if there were monopoly state schools everywhere, centrally managed and perpetual pay increases for teachers above inflation. The PPTA thinks what parents want is not as important, after all the workers always know what's best for the consumer don't they? Lockwood Smith's biggest political mistake was not to confront this bullying labour cartel when he had the chance, and remove decisions on teacher salaries from central bargaining.

So the appropriate solution to save private schools is NOT a "bail out", but something more sophisticated than that. End paying twice for education. It can be done different ways. I'd say just give parents back their education taxes and let them spend it. That's Libertarianz policy. In fact, just letting them opt out of taxpayer funded education would do the job. They could always pay directly for a state school if they change their minds.

However, there are other approaches:
- Parents who choose private education could simply have the proportion of their income tax taken for education refunded;
- A standard amount could be refunded to reflecting the average cost of a state secondary education per student; or
- ACT's policy of allowing funding to follow the student. Private schools then get the same funding as state schools.

Whatever it is, it is crying out for radical reform. The Nats wont want to be seen to be propping up private schools, but having either a tax credit or letting funding follow students would make a positive difference to schools.

After all, education is the sector most desperately in need of reform so that those paying for it actually can exercise the power of consumers, and those wanting to provide it can make their own decisions.

Expect the left to fight it tooth and nail though, after all, without the teaching labour cartels, the Labour Party would lose a key source of funding, membership and candidates, and the Greens, who sometimes fight monopolies, embrace them when Nanny State is in charge.

Obama subsidises home owners

CNN reports that the Obama Administration is going to spend US$75 billion to rescue property speculators whose mortgages are worth more than the value of their homes. Those who didn't enter the property market, or entered it more wisely, are subsidising those who were foolish, who thought the market would ever increase. Those who didn't take out mortgage repayment insurance will be subsidised by those who did.

The Obama administration is rewarding irresponsibility and poor decisionmaking by fleecing the children of those taxpayers. Moreso, he is inflating the property market, making it yet harder for new entrants to it. An administration that ostensibly cares about the cost of housing is pushing prices up for new home owners.

Change who can believe in?

President Obama said that those who would qualify are people the bank are not interested in - which of course, makes it ok to take from the general public to help them out. He said "no sale will return your investment". Well of course not, bad investments SHOULDN'T return you anything. Governments using their fiat money have supported the inflation of the property market as a ghost prosperity allowing people to borrow against their homes, and to encourage speculation for those wanting to make gains. It caused the problem and is unwilling to let the housing market deflate to its rightful level. It is willing to offer even more credit, so presumably people can engage in subsidised bargain hunting.

So Obamaphiles, hope your children are grateful they are paying more in taxes to pay the debt of property speculators. No humour in that is there?

Even more of your money on "infrastructure"

Yep the Nats are going to spend more, following on from last week's US$484 million of "fast tracked" projects, according to Stuff.

It's your money to be used to subsidise these projects, and it basically means money to subsidise the internet, roads (given all fuel tax is already dedicated to other projects), prisons, schools and to insulate state houses.

So what to think of that?

$1.5 billion for broadband. Given that the private sector has so far built three national mobile phone networks without a cent of taxpayers’ money, why should you be forced to pay to subsidise other people’s internet access, just because they don’t live in Wellington or Christchurch (where there are parallel networks). How about removing barriers to investment in telecommunications infrastructure? How about cutting company tax to make returns more lucrative? No – pork for the relatively well heeled. The talk of broadband facilitating business is usually not shared with the fact that broadband is also extensively used for entertainment. THIS is National's new Think Big - and those who rejected the last one are happily cheering this on - without seeing the irony that destroying Telecom's property rights under Labour probably hindered development of new telecommunications infrastructure more than any other recent government measure.

$200-300 million for a new prison? Well at that cost it better be good, especially when you have a 50% range on the price! This is core state business, but I do wonder how much capacity could be saved by addressing victimless crimes.

Waikato expressway? Basically, there are seven segments of the expressway that haven’t been built. Of them, three are definitely worth progressing, the others aren’t.
- Longswamp to Te Kauwhata is partly complete, and isn't a safety or congestion concern.
- Rangiriri bypass is worth building to remove through traffic from that village.
- Huntly bypass is exhorbitantly expensive, over $400 million for a steep hilly highway over Taupiri Hill. Not worth building at present.
- Ngaruawahia bypass is well worth building, as it shortens distance, journey time, improves safety and can link with the improvements at Te Rapa and west of Hamilton.
- Hamilton (east) bypass is over half a billion dollars and hardly worth building at present, when much needs to be spent on the existing Hamilton (west) bypass. Last segment that should be built.
- Tamahere to Cambridge four laning is worth building to improve safety between Cambridge and Hamilton.
- Cambridge bypass is well worth building as a two lane highway with passing lanes for now, to relieve the rather nice town of Cambridge from heavy traffic

Central Tauranga Corridor? Good project, Tauranga has significant congestion on roads ill equipped to perform arterial functions, though again why general taxpayers should pay is beyond me.

More school building? Well let’s pour money into infrastructure for a centrally planned, bureaucratically driven system then. The core problem is simply ignored.

Insulation of state houses? Assuming they are sold, it would be fine, if it would recover more in rent. However, we all know this is a subsidy for those with housing provided by nanny. Market rentals would help, but we know THAT wont happen.

Yes we can!

As US comedians find it hard to parody the new personality cult President, it is unclear exactly why other than sympathy, fear of being called racist or just not being imaginative.

Tim Blair in the Sydney Morning Herald asks why this is the case. However he did also find that the Japanese are laughing at him - though, admittedly, if you know Japanese this will be funnier for more than 30 seconds.





(Hat Tip: Tim Blair)

Aviation security call unnecessary

I'm hardly surprised at the report in the Dominion Post of a recommendation to introduce security screening of all domestic passenger flights. The Police and Aviation Security Service have strong vested interests in expanding any security operation, even regardless of the miniscule risk.

The report says there is a "very low threat from terrorists, moderate risk from acutely disaffected people drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges".

Yes seriously, there is a bigger threat from car bombs in built up areas. However, I don't notice security screening of private cars in built up areas. A similar threat for bombing trains and buses, because there is NO screening of who people are before trains and buses are boarded.

The "moderate risk" from acutely disaffected people, drunks, those suffering mental disorder or irrational grudges, is something that might be picked up on check in, and frankly "moderate" is nonsense. According to the report 3.7 events per year happen.

The review is entirely because of the case of Asha Ali Abdille who took knives on a Beech 1900 light and attacked the crew. This sort of risk could be better addressed by having lockable doors on the plane, instead of subjecting hundreds of thousands of travellers every day to a search. Don't forget that all aircraft above 19 seats have at least one member of cabin crew. Better yet, sue this mad woman for the cost she imposed on all of the passengers and the airline.

You see, the sense of perspective about security and terrorism is completely skewed by the narrow minded attitude of those only working in aviation. Has the report analysed the cost in delay, frustration and additional costs for making purchases at destinations for toiletries etc, because of the ridiculous restrictions on hand luggage? What are the costs to business and travellers of this? Those in security care next to nothing about that, remember how they goose stepped everyone into only carrying toiletries in little containers. These are on the same flights that have hot beverages, glass, shoes, belts, rope and any other kind of potential weapon.

To take a clear example - it's remarkable how in the UK iIwas always screened for flying on 50 seat regional flights, but those boarding trains going at 125mph from Euston, Kings Cross or Paddington (or arriving there) faced absolutely nothing. Much like those catching the tube or buses, because they couldn't function with the restrictions. Instead, there is the use of CCTV, the physical presence of security staff and the use of intelligence to monitor security.

Of course you wont 100% ensure there are no incidents. After all, there was security at US domestic airports before 9/11. There could still be incidents, but it is like other human activities. Driving is risky, walking in the street it risky, life is risky. It's about time that the endless call to impose delays, inconvenience and cost upon the 99% of those who fly, in a country with next to no risk of terrorist attack, be resisted. International flights obviously must face security screening, given the profile and realistic danger of terrorism. Domestic jet flights are barely understandable, given the speeds and fuel carried, but provincial flights?

The truth is that you are at far more danger walking around the streets of Whakatane, Wanganui, Kaitaia and Timaru at night, than you are risking boarding a plane at the airports there with someone who will kill you.

The government should demand a full benefit/cost assessment, taking into account the costs imposed on travellers (not the NZ$4.66 but the delay, stress and related costs of not carrying what you need in hand luggage) - and compare it to other risks, and propose other options.

What privatisation can do

Remember the Ministry of Works? Built roads and dams, maintained them too. The stereotype of an expensive, not very clever, lazy organisation.

It became Workscorp under Roger Douglas, you know that man that terrifies National and Labour so much with all those policies he implemented that neither have reversed. In 1996 the Nats sold the consultancy arm to a Malaysian firm, which invested in it Now it is one of New Zealand's most successful companies exporting services under the name Opus. Its head office is in Wellington, still.

The NZ Herald notes:

"Infrastructure consultant Opus International Consultants has exceeded expectations with increased revenue and profits, up around 25 per cent for 2008.

Revenue was $371.5 million, up 25.4 per cent on 2007, and the net surplus after tax was $17.5 million, up 23.4 per cent, for the year ended December 31, 2008, the company announced to the stock market today"

"Business acquisitions in the United Kingdom and in Canada increased Opus' total staff from 2236 to 2563, and it now operated from 81 offices world-wide."

Could you have seen Workscorp doing that, let alone the Ministry of Works?

Hardly.

Given some SOEs are world class in their field (e.g. Airways Corporation, NZ Post) you might wonder how, with private investment, some of our constrained state owned enterprises might perform if let off the leash. Ironically, with the money governments are pouring into infrastructure, as a panacea to recession, Opus is probably a company in one of the best places to grow from strength to strength.

Good job Roger Douglas ignored Jim Anderton. Good job Jim Bolger ignored Helen Clark, Winston Peters and Jim Anderton - and frankly the majority of you out there.

Yes, it is Malaysian owned, but almost its entire management is New Zealand based, and much of its staff are New Zealanders.

Oh the humanity!

So the left thinks the world will come to an end because the Nats are looking to trim small numbers of people that taxpayers are forced to pay for.

It is most bizarre that the left talk of economic illiteracy from the likes of Roger Kerr, when they seem to think it's ok to keep plundering taxpayers in a recession so that large numbers of effectively unproductive people can remain employed.

Let's make it clear, there are three types of people working for the state:

1. Those undertaking productive activity in enterprises or institutions that could be operated privately. e.g. electricity SOEs, roads, schools, hospitals.
2. Those undertaking core state activities that are necessary for a functioning liberal capitalist economy. e.g. Police, courts, prisons, defence, justice.
3. Everyone else. Who range from regulators to advisors to inspectors.

The first lot could probably do with an efficiency drive, which really only comes most effectively through privatisation, although the SOEs aren't a bad stepping stone to that.

The second lot definitely need a reallocation and focus on protecting citizens, rather than telling them what to do. However, given dissatisfaction over crime, there is more scope to move those people around rather than cut them.

The third lot would mostly be looking for something else to do under a Libertarianz government. There may be a tiny handful of advisors to handle the likes of diplomatic relations with other countries and treaties, and advice on law, justice reform and the like, but the rest? Either sit in the private sector advising private entities or become productive.

The trimming of the Nats will be minor compared to the bloating of the state sector under Labour - something that all taxpayers should be concerned about. I suspect more than few on the left worry because no one else is likely to employ them!

Imagine if, for example, a cost benefit analysis was done for every state sector employee as to whether they generated more net benefits than taxpayers would if you gave them the money back. That is the type of thinking ACT likes.

I just think theft is theft, and you are either honest that you believe in large scale legalised theft or you're not or you disagree with it.

An amendment for three strikes

Here's a thought.

Besides amending three strikes and you're out to being weighted to different crimes, how about excluding it when any crime does not have a specified victim?

That means:
- Consumption of drugs;
- Censorship violations that didn't involve recordings of people being victims;
- All traffic offences when no harm was caused, or likely threat;
- Blasphemy;
- Sex crimes that don't include force or minors;

Or how about simply saying it applies whenever force or fraud is applied to people's bodies or property?

Go on ACT - be the liberal party.

Want to be a journalist in North Korea?

Then you better know how to write the right copy for the Korean Central News Agency about General Secretary Kim Jong Il on his birthday:

Like this

"the DPRK is holding you, an illustrious commander born of Heaven and a peerlessly great man in history, in high esteem as the sun of the nation and the dignity and national power of Kim Il Sung's nation are being demonstrated on the highest level."

or:

"You are a peerlessly brilliant commander of Songun who has performed immortal exploits before the country and nation, the times and history by leading the Juche revolutionary cause to victory for half a century and a peerlessly great man who enjoys boundless and absolute trust of progressive mankind.

or:

"You have performed exploits by building a prospering socialist land of bliss on this land through gigantic creations and changes and opening a new chapter in the confrontation with the U.S. and the cause of the country's reunification with your preeminent strategy and matchless courage and they are recorded in the human history to shed rays all over the world"

or:

"his extraordinary wisdom, outstanding leadership and matchless grit and pluck"

or:

"The Egypt-Korea Friendship Association released its bulletin titled "Kim Jong Il and his extraordinary leadership art" on Feb. 8, which said that Kim Jong Il is a person possessed of rare leadership art. His leadership art is characterized by the ability to combine politics and military affairs organically before anything else and then by the persistent power of execution to carry through something determined to do, it added.

The politics of creation to solve everything in a unique way without adherence to the existing formula and usage, the brilliant flexible politics--this is another important aspect of Kim Jong Il's leadership art, the bulletin stressed."

Certainly not adhering to the existing formula, but flexible?