ARC plays with your money

The ARC, which became a greatly empowered and enriched entity under Labour, is looking to spend $10 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on Eden Park.

.

Stuff reports "Council chairman Michael Lee said the proposed contribution would come from its investments, not rates" which is still ratepayers' money, he simply wants to soften the blow by claiming rates wont go up as a result - well they will, as there will be less money than there would have been otherwise.

.

The alternative is that $10 million could simply be redistributed to all Auckland ratepayers as a grant. Given around 300,000 or so ratepayers, that extra $30 would be helpful for some, it might even help pay for a ticket to Eden Park - you know, so that people can choose to support it.

Roger Douglas and ACT?

Well if Sir Roger Douglas wants to return to politics and appear on the ACT list, good luck to him. However, it will raise the issue as to whether ACT IS the liberal party that Rodney Hide has been inching it towards. It could be an interesting challenge, after all ACT's original platform had a number of characteristics, that varied from the tempting to the confusing to the disturbing.

The tempting included:

• Zero income tax. That's right, the only tax ACT was pushing back in the early days was GST, with income and company tax gone.
• Privatisation of all government businesses and some activities such as ACC.
• Opening up social services such as health and education to a wide range of choice and competition. People would not have to put up with compulsory die while your wait health care or paying twice for their kids education if they wanted to use independent schools.

The confusing was:

• Absolutely no policy on anything that wasn't economic. For example, justice, law and order, defence, foreign policy, constitutional matters.

The disturbing was:

• Replacing income tax with compulsory private superannuation, compulsory health insurance and education cover. In other words, instead of the state forcing you to pay it to provide services, the state forced you to pay the private sector (although it wasn't always clear if schools would be privatised or not) for the services. Yes it might have been more efficient and more competitive, but it was still compulsion - and absolutely no indication that this was a transitional step which, on balance, I could support.

So let ACT go forward and be rescued by Sir Roger Douglas, but I doubt very much if it will be the liberal party it has aspired to be. Having said that, for some National supporters he might just give them a reason to tick ACT. Given National is largely devoid of policy, ACT can fill part of the vacuum, if only it would fill the vacuum it always has within itself. It is the vacuum that meant ACT had no policy on civil unions, no policy on legalising prostitution and doesn't lead campaigns to get rid of crimes such as blasphemy and sedition.

That, of course, requires a commitment to individual freedom, and only the Libertarianz have that in New Zealand at the moment.

Unfair trade : download the Adam Smith Institute report

It is here

Here are the highlights of the executive summary points, which are even more damning than I expected. 10% of the fairtrade premium goes to the producer, the rest is retail markup:

• Fair trade does not aid economic development. It operates to keep the poor in their place, sustaining uncompetitive farmers on their land and holding back diversification, mechanization, and moves up the value chain. This denies future generations the chance of a better life.
.
• Fair trade is targeted to help landowners, and not the agricultural labourers who suffer the severest poverty. Fairtrade rules actually make it more difficult for labourers to gain permanent, full-time employment.
.
• Four-fifths of the produce sold by Fairtrade-certified farmers ends up in non-Fairtrade goods. At the same time, it is possible that many goods sold as Fairtrade might not actually be Fairtrade at all.
.
• Just 10% of the premium consumers pay for Fairtrade actually goes to the producer. Retailers pocket the rest.

So I challenge the Green Party, and promoters of so called "fair trade", to present the evidence. Show it is more than spreading guilt, feeling good and paying more.

Ask everywhere if your council or employer has hopped onto this bandwagon, why. Send them a copy of the report, and tell them to stop wasting money on this fraud, and instead lobby for free trade, or support a genuine NGO charity in a poorer country.

Fairtrade damned further

Following on from yesterday's reports on Fairtrade, a comment on the Daily Telegraph website makes for sobering reading - about the reality of Fairtrade:

.

"I was the acting Chief Exective of the largest independent coffee and tea trader in the world in the early 1990's and found all that you have mentioned and even worse to be true. I want to highlight some of your points toward the end of your article to make clear that the mega-growers also ship and sell their lower quality beans into the Fairtrade markets through brokers and receive the subsidized "charity price" from the "socially responsible" rather unquestioning public. This is exactly what was meant to be avoided, and it is done in huge volumes. This type of illegal activity is almost impossible to police at the level where it occurs, and where supervision has been pursued it has either failed or been simply too expensive to maintain (especially when the bribes at the storage and market delivery locations are factored in). So what happens is that the small farmers end up competing directly with the mega-producers for "shelf-and-mouth" space, which is a losing battle and exactly the opposite of what was intended to occur. Please, everyone, do not buy Fairtrade unless you (or somone you completely trust) can track your purchase back from the cup in front of you to the fields/farmers that the beans (or other produce) came from."

.

So there you have it, Fairtrade markets get exploited by the large producers that Fairtrade lovers so abhor, and it is difficult to thwart this.

.

One of the most damning criticisms I have of Fairtrade is that it diverts attention from the REAL "fair" trade issue - opening up of markets. Perhaps the most wealth generating and liberating move that could be made for people in developing countries would be for both developed and developing countries to open up their markets.

.

Developed countries need to end export subsidies that mean their producers undercut those from competitors, they also need to end prohibitions, quotas and tariffs on imports so that the most efficient producers have a fair shot at the wealthiest markets. Developing countries need to abolish legal monopolies on imports and infrastructure, open up internal markets to competition and remove prohibitions, quotas and tariffs on imports, especially those that can aid in improving productivity.

.

Fairtrade diverts attention from the fight to remove these barriers to productivity and wealth, by claiming that fiddling with prices can make people wealthier.

.

Of course those in poorer countries should not be maltreated, should not have their property stolen, should not be expected to work in extremely dangerous conditions, but the answers to this are complex, and lie significantly in having governments which apply a rule of law, which protect individual rights and property rights.

.

So what is "fair"? Janet Daley in the Daily Telegraph today notes how the word "Fair" has been misused by the left and is now used as a synonym for equality of wealth, yet is highly destructive.

.

She said:

... even more dangerous is the peculiarly lethal principle of "fairness" that seems to prevail in the NHS (or at least at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which determines what treatments the NHS may use): if everyone can't have it, no one should. On this basis, procedures and medications that could save or transform individual lives must be barred if they cannot be made available to every patient who might conceivably benefit from them.

.
Once again, "fair" must mean "the same": so the breast cancer patient who is a young mother may be denied the drug that could lengthen her life because it would not be feasible to provide it for all the breast cancer patients who are over 80, and if she offers to pay for the drug herself she may be barred from receiving any NHS treatment (because it is "unfair" for her to use her own money to buy what others cannot afford).

.
How have we come to accept such vindictive uses of the word "fair"?

.
Of course it was initially the fault of the Left and its special pleading lobbies, which - like some Fairtrade promoters - had a lot to gain. But the Right has been complicit: it has surrendered words like "fairness" and "opportunity" - and accepted caricatures of other words such as "selfish" and "greedy" - with scarcely a murmur of dissent."

.

Indeed. Expect John Key this year, and David Cameron two years from now to talk about fairness a lot - and both will be peddling the status quo.

Fairtrade fails and deceives: Part Two

Like I posted earlier, there are a whole host of reasons why Fairtrade creates perverse incentives and can hurt more than help. However, most of them come down to one major difference between Fairtrade and free trade - Fairtrade corrupts the price mechanism. Prices aren't just about "what it costs to buy something", they are signals about whether to increase or decrease production due to demand, whether to increase or decrease consumption, they inform about quality. They are the culmination of many factors, but ultimately are the culmination of free choices to produce/sell, and to buy. It is the ultimate democracy of the market, more than voting for a politician, it is voting for a product. Sadly too many do not recognise this.

.

Price sends the following key signals, Fairtrade grossly distorts these:

.

1. Prices for produce are partially a function of quality: The better the produce, the better the price, and vice versa. This rewards good farmers, innovative farmers and producers, and penalises those growing in areas less suitable or those less attentive (who should probably do something else).

.
2. Prices are a function of supply and demand: Very low prices for produce reflect over supply relative to demand, which is a signal that some producers should stop producing or shift to other commodities/enhance quality or the like. Paying some regardless of quality and demand, suppresses prices for all others and encourages more to produce, creating a cycle of increased poverty. This particularly hurts those unable to participate in Fairtrade, but even if all were involved in Fairtrade, it would create a glut of unsold produce. Buyers would pay high prices, but would be turning away produce - which wouldn't get paid for, which may end up harming the most productive. Think carefully how much harm this could cause.

.
3. Low prices encourage higher productivity: Producers of low priced products can decide to change what they produce or could become more efficient, so that their margins over cost are better at lower prices. This means taking steps to increase productivity, such as in Brazil where in the coffee sector mechanisation can mean five people can have the productivity of 500. The price is then shared between less people. What do the others do? Well they can produce goods and services that people will pay more for - perhaps Fairtrade activists could help them out to find what these could be rather than trap them in overproduced commodities?

.

4. Paying high prices for Fairtrade products damages sellers of other goods and services: While you’ve been assuaging your conscience buying Fairtrade bananas or coffee, you’ve spent money on those goods that you might have spent on other items. Not only have you lost out on not having those, so has the producer of those missed out on you not buying them. Given the amount of the Fairtrade premium milked by others along the way, you might also question whether the high price didn’t largely benefit your local supermarket as much as the farmer. You might have bought more fruit and vegetables, you might have bought more meat, you could have spent more on clothes, holidays, or paid off your mortgage. In other words, a whole chain of people could benefit from what you save paying market prices.

.

So how long will this Fairtrade charade persist? As long as you keep supporting it and not asking questions. Ask those supporting this why they encourage overproduction of poor quality produce in poor countries. Ask them why they encourage old fashioned means of production that keep people stuck in labour intensive jobs. Ask them how much of the Fairtrade premium goes to retailers and wholesalers, and don't take "not a lot" as an answer, ask for number. Ask why you should pay more to buy one product and then not buy another product, which also helps people making it?

.

Make THEM think too!

Ralph Nader to stand for US Presidency

Hmm well, those on the left will be a little worried he'll rob them of their entitlement at the Presidency, like they think he did in 2000 - but well, I'm not fussed. Frankly, he might help Obama as claims of Obama being on the left will be diluted by Nader standing, as if one can point at Nader and say "hey he doesn't think I'm socialist enough" (or "progressive" as statist thieving is called").

.

Funnily though, Ralph Nader said to NBC according to the Sunday Telegraph "if the Democrats could not win this year by a “landslide” despite his involvement, then “they should just close down". He's probably right.

.

I despise Nader, but he does have principle - he at least gives those who want more government, more taxes, more regulation, destruction of private property rights, surrendering US allies to their enemies and hatred of business, someone to vote for. Who do those who want less government, less tax, more freedom, wider application of private property rights and respect for wealth creation, along with standing with US allies against attack and oppression?

Fairtrade fails and deceives: Part One

"Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world. By requiring companies to pay sustainable prices (which must never fall lower than the market price), Fairtrade addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers. It enables them to improve their position and have more control over their lives"

That’s the legend sold with Fairtrade, on the Fairtrade Foundation website. It is about to be heavily promoted big time in the UK through Fairtrade Fortnight. However, Fairtrade isn't fair, or good, it is ignoring basic economics and is highly deceptive. It is hindering development far more than it helps.

It is often treated by the likes of the Green Party as an alternative to free trade, so it excuses protectionism (bans and tariffs on imports). You see they are ignorant of economics too.

What Fairtrade actually is about is an ideology of guilt-mongering to brand products on the basis of being “ethical” which are marked up for the “good” of all those involved, grossly distorting price signals and producing perverse results. In the Sunday Telegraph today, the Adam Smith Institute has announced the release of a damning report about “Fairtrade” called, aptly, “Unfair trade”. The Institute states “At best, Fairtrade is a marketing device that does the poor little good. At worst, it may inadvertently be harming some of the planet’s most vulnerable people”.

How so, you say? How can it be unfair to pay producers more for making what they do, in such poor countries? Well the report points to a number of major issues:

• Fairtrade pays farmers to maintain uncompetitive farming methods rather than using modern techniques that can enhance production. Environmentalists might argue that those techniques are more environmentally sustainable, but the Fairtrade Foundation admits it has no programmes to encourage the use of technology in farming, of any kind. It even gives counterproductive advice, encouraging crop mixing, which hinders mechanisation.
• A fraction of the Fairtrade premium charged to consumers reaches the producer, retailers pocket the rest as Fairtrade products are perceived as high yield and less price sensitive. In short, customers are more willing to pay for the “Fairtrade” label, oblivious as to whether the premium reaches the producer. The Fairtrade Foundation insists it ensures farmers are paid more than they would otherwise (no doubt retailers are too!), but do consumers accept the premium paid to everyone is fair?
• Fairtrade only accredits farmers if they join together as co-operatives. Farmers working for Café Britt in Costa Rica are self-employed small business people who own the land they farm, but this is “unacceptable to ideologues at FLO international” Fairtrade’s certifiers. Café Britt has been refused Fairtrade status, even though its Costa Rican farmers have increased incomes by processing, roasting, packaging and branding locally as well. Fairtrade coffee, by contrast, is roasted and packaged in the EU.
• The Fairtrade Foundation is seeking to dominate the trade, by seeking to monopolise the concept of “ethically branded” produce by persuading local authorities, companies, schools and the like to declare themselves “pro Fairtrade” at the expense of other brands claiming the same thing (like Café Britt). This has effectively limited the range of "pro producer" activities as the brand itself limits innovation to that approved by the brand. It also inflates the price by not having competing "fairtrade" brands.
• Fairtrade supporters ignore the real causes of poverty amongst many growers by pursuing an ideological crusade against world market prices and multinational corporations. According to the Sunday Telegraph, coffee growers in Kenya interviewed by Alex Singleton of the Globalisation Institute told of being forced to used the monopoly milling and fertilizer companies, imposed by the state, and the high tariffs on imported tools that could assist production. Of course this could be addressed by free trade, but Fairtrade supporters are not interested in confronting poor country governments.
• Fairtrade encourages poorer quality produce. As many farmers sell produce in both Fairtrade and open markets, farmers will often sell their best produce on the open market to secure the best price (as the open market is quality driven), and sell poorer quality produce on the Fairtrade market, as the price is guaranteed. The effect this has on quality for those selling entirely on the Fairtrade market is questionable at best.

Fairtrade is another example of good intentions paving a road to hell, as it is driven by an ideology distant from reality. It is driven by faith that the world would be a far better place if only those mean old markets paid people more for what they produce (low prices are unfair!!), with even more ideological baggage along with that. Part of it is environmental – the old adage that organic is better than mechanisation, and fertilisers are “bad”. Part of it is simply socialism – companies are bad, so farmers should all be in co-operatives. Beyond that is the basic rejection of the price mechanism.

Ah, you say, but if I want to pay more so that a farmer gets more, shouldn't I be allowed to? Of course you should. I'd let you set fire to your money if you wanted to (you're not allowed), but that doesn't mean you should necessarily feel better, or those that don't buy fairtrade are immoral - the truth may be quite the opposite.

So what does ignoring the price mechanism do?

Report on the environment - how shallow is it?

So what about the "Environment New Zealand 2007" report? Is it a piece of robust well researched analysis that is balanced, or does it contain some of its own spin? Well it is lengthy, so as I said before I've read the transport section - since environmentalists have a particular dedication to that sector - to see what it says.

Most of the chapter on transport contains a lot of statistics, which themselves are quite interesting. Nothing too surprising there, as increases in wealth parallel increases in car ownership, the size of cars owned (which also reflects demographics of baby boomer families wanting larger vehicles) and kilometres driven. This all is a good thing, as it means more people have access to flexible transport options. It also shows that only 5% of trips to work are by public transport, with twice as many people working at home. Funny how the ones taking the most environmentally friendly option don't get subsidised for it (neither do the 6% who walk to work).

However, in with all the stats come some less evidence based claims:

1. “Public transport generally provides a lower-cost and more environmentally friendly transport choice than using a private car.”
.
How? If it is lower cost, then people will use it and pay a fare to recover the fixed and marginal costs of public transport. However, they don’t. In fact 95% don’t find it “lower cost” if you include value of time and comfort. Moreover, it is hardly lower cost when it requires subsidies of between 50% and 70% in many cases. When did you last get a subsidy to drive your car to work? Of course there are externalities, but this claim doesn't say that.

.

2. The environmentally friendly claim is made again “Public transport offers benefits to the environment in the form of less air pollution, lower fuel consumption, and less traffic congestion compared with private transport.”

.

Really? For starters it is a messy statement, triple counting one benefit. Lower fuel consumption isn't an environmental benefit, but the cause of less air pollution, and congestion is about delays, not pollution. So we are talking about air pollution only. Secondly, the government's own Surface Transport Costs and Charges study changes the view on this...

.

That states that an average bus in Auckland at the AM peak emits over 18x the emissions of the average car. Now according to that study, the average car typically has occupancy levels of around 1.4, with buses have average occupancy of around 18 people, which means that cars - on average- emit less pollution per passenger carried than buses on average in Auckland. Now trains ARE cleaner, but they have a bigger problem - train fares are only 30-50% of the cost of running the trains, and it is damned expensive replacing them and building their corridors (which don't get well used).

.

So the claim that public transport IS better for the environment is questionable. The truth is that it depends on it being well patronised, and funnily enough commercially run services tend to be more than subsidised ones, because subsidised ones don't HAVE to make money from fares alone.

.

In fact the Surface Transport Costs and Charges study does expose some of the favourite Green Party myths about transport in New Zealand:

.

1. On a per person basis the same pollution is created by 3 people travelling in a car on a long distance trip as is every person travelling on a bus or a train. So the average family holiday by car is more environmentally friendly than the average family holiday by bus or train.

.

2. The environmental costs of long haul freight, for the primarily rural movements analysed, are similar in magnitude between trucks and trains. On top of that "Current charges (mainly RUC) are in most cases greater than the level of marginal provider/external costs (principally accident externalities and marginal road wear)." So in short, trucks already more than cover the costs they impose in most cases.

.

3. ACC charges significantly over recover the costs of accidents attributable to cars (112%), trucks (587%) and buses (345%), but under recover costs from motor cycle users (18%). So it is nonsense to claim the costs of road accidents are not paid for by road users, except one group.

.

Yes there are problems, congestion is by far the biggest "unpaid "cost, but this is because of poor management of networks and bad investment decisions. Most environmental costs comprise air pollution (which is getting better) and are on local roads (due to slow speeds and exposure to people).

.

It simply isn't as bad as is made out

Greens spinning and hiding the truth

If you just listened to Russel Norman on the release of the Ministry for the Environment's report "Environment New Zealand 2007" you'd think things are bleak, you'd think cars are one of the main sources of blame and that the government is acting contrary to the report. Plus, of course, you'd think the now released "Chapter 13" is damning. Chapter 13 is just a summary, with a few broad recommendations.

~

Sadly, scaremongering is one of the key currencies of the Greens, so I thought I'd actually READ Chapter 13, and given that transport is a field of mine I'd read the chapter on transport and read the chapter on air pollution (since previous government studies indicated that the environment impacts of transport are predominantly air pollution). You too can read the reports here. I wanted to know if the reports really DO damn road transport.

~

So what HAS Russel claimed the reports have said? Well the claims are across a couple of press releases here and here. These are his key points on transport:

~

CLAIM: Russel says the report "makes some inconvenient recommendations for action such as national environmental regulation and more public transport", and on the Youtube video he says it repeatedly calls for more public transport and that building a big motorway in Auckland goes against the report.

.

FACT: The report DOES call for public transport to have a biggest share of trips, but does NOT call for no more road building. It doesn't at all mention reducing spending on roads.

.

CLAIM: Russel says "This report shows that people want more convenient sustainable transport options. This means fast, cheap and comfortable public transport as well as safer cycling and walking." "Shows" but doesn't say. In fact it says nothing about people wanting more public transport at all, nothing about stopping road building.

.

In fact if you read the MAIN report, you'll find plenty of inconvenient truths that Russel ignored:

• “Levels of PM10 particulates at roadside locations in Auckland appear to have fallen over the past 10 years" PM10 are particulates, the air pollution that causes the greatest damage to health.
• "Benzene levels at monitored locations are at an acceptable level. Levels are higher near busy roads than in residential areas, but appear to be improving. This improvement is probably due to changes in vehicle fuel composition. Lead was eliminated from New Zealand petrol in 1996, so airborne lead levels are now very low.” So more good news.
• The worst one appears to be “Levels of nitrogen dioxide are at an acceptable level around New Zealand, with the exception of some locations in Auckland affected by traffic emissions. Emissions of nitrogen dioxide in Auckland appear to be increasing". Hardly devastating.
• Despite the war on cars of the Greens the report also points out that “Home heating is the main cause of air pollution in populated areas in the winter" Hmm don't see anything about people's home fires in the Green party statements, bit of an inconvenient truth that it ISN'T transport, but rather home heating in most parts of the country outside Auckland that creates most air pollution.
• Vehicle ownership has increased, as have km driven (although down in the last year), and the vehicles people buy are getting bigger, yet this is largely a function of wealth. A good thing.
• Fuel is cleaner now that it has ever been, with sulphur levels now 96% less than they were four years ago. Sulphur is the key source of particulates from transport emissions.
• 10% of road vehicles create 40% of pollution, largely because they are badly tuned. Responding to this issue alone would make a worthwhile difference.

The real inconvenient truth is that air pollution is, by and large, getting better. Not that the Greens would admit it.

The report doesn't call for an end to road building, does not rank car traffic as the leading cause of air pollution and does not advocate the Green's pets of rail transport, or ANYTHING about shifting freight from trucks to rail or shipping.

In fact, it shows that while people own more cars, travel more km by car, most indicators of air pollution are improving, and besides much of the problem is caused by home heating. So what does that make the Greens other than masters of spin and scaremongering?

The transport chapter is here.

The air pollution chapter is here

A mate and his girlfriend are having sex

Do you:

a) Watch

b) Not Watch

~

so says an interactive DVD produced for AFL players to improve their attitudes to women according to the NZ Herald. Of course it left out:

~

c) Offer to join in to double team her

d) Ask her if she's bi and you can bring your girlfriend over for an orgy

.

Both being quite legitimate options if they all consent. Similarly with the question:

.

You are called by a mate's girlfriend into her bedroom because she thinks you are her boyfriend.

.

Do you:
a - Go and hop into bed and pretend to be him.
b - Walk away.

.

Well hold on. Why not go, be yourself and see what she says. After all, what the hell are you doing at her house (or his house where she lives) and he isn't around? She might be keen for a shag anyway.

.

Poor lads, you can see them watching all confused, with questions like:

.

You are with a girl who has had too much to drink. Do you:
a - Get her some water.
b - Call her a taxi.
c - Take her back to your place for sex.

.

Watch the heads scratch when they wonder if this is a "place them in the right order" question, and wonder where the "is she hot" question gets answered. However, you can understand why it needs to be done. They are largely men full of testosterone and not a lot else, and surrounded by a culture whereby easy women hang off them, and they are bound to go for what they can.

.

I'm sure this will change things significantly hmmmm. Although is it not just enough to ask for them to not force themselves on women, and not take advantage of women who are unable to consent? Rather than roleplaying situations which are, frankly, not offering the more likely and adventurous options. After all, it is awfully sexist to assume only men have filthy minds, plenty of women I expect would happily consent to be gangbanged by AFL players!

Flashing for Hillary?

Hillary either hasn't a sense of humour, or didn't find the girl hot, or maybe she knows now this probably just happens to Obama?

Low Emission Zone London or Ken's tax on trucks

It’s election year in London, and Mayor Ken Livingstone is waging war on road transport – again.

Since 4 February he has made ALL of London (yes not just central) a “Low Emission Zone”. What this means is that any lorry over 12 tonnes that enters any part of Greater London under the authority of the Greater London Authority must have an engine rated as being euro 3 or above, otherwise it faces a £200 charge. This tends to mean that lorries registered since October 1991 will be exempt, but those older than that will face the fee. Failure to pay will result in a fine of £1500.

The scheme will cost £10 million to operate, and is costing £50 million to implement (figures quoted from BBC London) but its benefits are likely to be difficult to detect. The scheme will undoubtedly cost millions to businesses, as currently roadworthy lorries will need to be sold, or the fines and fees passed onto customers. Meanwhile, the lorries will likely be relocated to other parts of Britain, producing dirty emissions there! The scheme is to be extended to lorries down to 3.5 tonnes by July 2008, along with buses, coaches, minibuses, vans, motor caravans and ambulances. Cars are specifically not included, curiously.

Of course it is very unclear how Ken intends to deal with foreign lorries, which are difficult to enforce against. Enforcement against foreign lorries depends on the ability to use law enforcement in EU countries for this purpose, which is highly variable. Non-EU countries are typically more difficult.

The ambition is to clean up local air quality in London, which can be appalling, albeit for some reasons Ken is unlikely to concede:

1. The increase in buses in London as subsidies have dramatically increased. Before Ken became Mayor, buses in London did not require net subsidies, now they cost over £1 billion a year in subsidies. Many buses run with few passengers, and with bus fares having been cut significantly, this encourages people to ride buses rather than walk, cycle or ride the tube (which produces no local emissions). There is little evidence that the additional buses produce less emissions than any cars replaced.

2. The appalling lack of good arterial roads away from built up areas. London’s road network is half finished, and may be destined to be so for some time. For example, the M25 is the only proper orbital route. The A206 north circular is partial highway, partial local street, with many residents exposed to noxious emissions because of anti-road building policies. There is no decent south circular route. A handful of large tunnelled highways would reduce this exposure, reduce emissions and congestion.

So we will wait and see what, if any, positive results come from the Low Emission Zone. Meanwhile, this will increase the costs of doing business in London, and I doubt there will be any measurable impact

Taxing migrants?

The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK is considering a levy on new migrants – to pay for the substandard NHS and public education systems. This ignores the elephant in the room. The problem isn't migrants, it is how health and education is funded and how demand for the services is rationed. The model of centrally planned bureaucracy keeps failing, so why keep using it because it seems too damned hard to fix it?

Here’s an idea, it can be applied to the UK, or NZ or indeed many countries....

New migrants don’t pay income tax (or national insurance in the UK), for three years (well they can if they want, but they don't get anything more for it). After that they can choose to do so, and avail themselves of the state provided “services” or continue to opt out. Indirect taxes such as VAT/GST are adequate to cover law and order, defence and other state functions.

In exchange for not paying income tax, new migrants have no claim on the public health system or education system and would be charged on a marginal cost recovery basis with a contribution to fixed costs. New migrants could also not claim taxpayer funding housing or welfare benefits. The years they spend not paying income tax also wont count for old age pensions/national superannuation.

In short, they pay for what they consume and what their families consume. Yes some bits and pieces would need ironing out, you can’t not pay income tax and then pay only the years your kids need an education. You’d need to pay from when they are born. You can’t opt out of income tax and expect to still get access to the state social services at all, it’s like insurance, you opt out and stay opted out.

However, if the state supplied socialised health, education and welfare services appeal, then migrants can pay income tax.

Unfair? How? It stops existing citizens from subsidising new ones through taxes, means the tiresome argument about “paying for infrastructure” is up to the new migrants to pay for, and suddenly the type of migrants you get might actually be those willing to be self sufficient.

In the UK this couldn’t apply to people from EU countries of course, sadly, but it can apply more generally. Of course NZ could apply it across the board, and you’d find out how many people really think they get value for money out of their taxes. You’d also find it a lot easier to recruit overseas doctors and the like.

Socialists will huff and puff that this will benefit their great nemesis - the rich (snarling jaws dripping with envy). Rich migrants of course, bringing their wealth into the country, spending their money. Socialists don’t want to argue that their beloved taxpayer funded social services are always going to be inadequate because they have few mechanisms for accountability, cost control, rewarding good performance and behaviour and penalising bad.

Most socialists show little interest in having a transparent debate about how much of taxes should be about paying for what you use, and how much is about compulsorily paying for other people.

Now that is an honest debate I’d like to have.

Wellingtonians: submissions on Ngauranga to Airport study

I blogged briefly about this some time ago, but since a couple of Wellington based blogs have made some comments, such as Eye of the Fish (which tends to be a little anti-road building) and Poneke, I thought I'd make some comments from a free market, economic rationalist perspective.

~

The Ngauranga to Airport study is a transport corridor study lead by Transit New Zealand including the Greater Wellington Regional Council and Wellington City Council, and it is about planning how the corridor/s from the junctions of State Highways 1 and 2 through to Wellington airport should be developed over the next 10 to 15 years. Submissions close at 5pm NZDST on 22 February.

~

My view is somewhat radical. I believe the road corridor is grossly inadequate and needs upgrading, with a second Terrace Tunnel, second Mt Victoria Tunnel and four lanes completed to Kilbirnie. I also believe Wellington needs a proper bypass between Mt Victoria and the Terrace Tunnel - covered trench, and that all of this can be paid for by peak time tolls for traffic entering the CBD. These tolls would reduce congestion significantly, encourage use of public transport, walking and cycling, and so greatly improve the flow of trucks, buses, taxis and cars - because the streets would no longer be run on the socialist principle of queuing, but rather the free market principle of price. With a large underground bypass linking the airport to the western and northern suburbs, and Porirua and the Hutt Valley, around a third of the traffic in Te Aro would be gone, as would the traffic along the waterfront. Friends of the Green Party view of less traffic might contemplate that, and visit Oslo to see what good toll funded bypass roads can do to the ambience of a city.

~

Public transport itself doesn't need special treatment. Light rail is popular, not least because some Wellingtonians, well travelled as they are, have seen trams in Melbourne, continental Europe and the like and "think they are cool", forgetting the enormous cost of triplicating infrastructure in putting them back in. Light rail needs tracks and overhead wires, that can't be used by other modes, but also simply can't serve the variety of locations of buses. Most importantly, the variety of origins and destinations for people bypassing downtown Wellington are such that high density public transport can't meet their needs. The efficient and profitable Flyer bus between the airport and the Hutt is a reasonable compromise that doesn't need others to pay for it.

~

In the meantime before tolling is introduced, bus lanes (also for trucks and taxis mind you) can be used to better allocate road space, and bus companies should be allowed to innovate more.

~

The study should allow for a innovative approach to transport along this critical corridor. It is quite a good report so far, with some decent tradeoffs to be made.

~

Wellington is vibrant, but is cauterised by a half finished motorway - still - depositing heavy volumes of traffic through its back door and along the waterfront. It's time to finish it and fund that and run the capital's roads on market principles - and see the difference. Oslo has.

~

UPDATE: A friend notes "The Chamber of Commerce had cute young blonde things in high-vis gear standing at traffic lights around the Basin last night handing out pro-forma submissions to the WRC on the Ngauranga to Airport study that's going on at the moment" Indeed it did. The Chamber of Commerce in fact takes a sensible approach on this.

George Galloway blames Cuban human rights abuses on the US

George Galloway, Marxist mate of dictators has just engaged on a vituperative tyrade against Channel 4 News blaming it for bias and propaganda. He claims that Cuba's lack of democracy, and its abuses of human rights are because of the US embargo. That's right it's "just like when Hitler was going to invade Britain".

~

How evil! Galloway was virtually spitting, enjoying his freedom to criticise independent media, enjoying his right of free speech, saying that Cuba would have all these freedoms "if only the US didn't impose an embargo". Oh really George? So the Soviet Union would have to "if only the US disarmed"? So what is the excuse for China? What is the excuse for North Korea? Why do the majority of states in the world have some degree of political freedom and liberal democracy?

~

Galloway is a tired old communist, who likes to shake hands with those with blood on their hands. Hopefully at the next election this wannabe dictator will get the boot from the voters of his east London electorate, or maybe he should go live in Cuba and enjoy the wonders of socialism, especially since he happily denies Cubans the right to decide if they like it, since they can neither vote, protest or leave Cuba!

~

Galloway you arrogant prick, how dare you claim that the Cuban regime has the right to imprison its own citizens for protesting against it, or for wanting to leave - how fucking special you think you are!

How green is your bus?

I've posted before about the Green Party obsession with public transport being a "faith based initiative" that when you look a little closer, is not that rooted in reality.

~

Now according to the NZ Herald, Paul Minett of Trip Convergence Ltd, a company promoting carpooling, claims that three people travelling in a car can have a lower carbon footprint than if they travelled by bus, adding fuel to the call for the new expensive busway to be available to more vehicles. Now some of his claims involve double counting (e.g. the bus returning empty twice shouldn't be attributed to a single bus trip), but he is quite right that the claims about the low emissions of public transport over private motoring aren't as clear cut as the simple Jeanette Fitzsimons view of "bus good, car baaad".

~

The government's own Surface Transport Costs and Charges study indicated that, per person, the environmental costs of buses were double that of cars in the Auckland peak period (Table 3.4A of main report). Per vehicle a bus produces 18 times the environmental impact per kilometre than a car, which tells you how many people the bus has to carry on average to be even with a car. Think about how often you see buses running with less than that number. More importantly, traffic congestion increases the environmental impact of a bus or car in the peak period in Auckland by over 200%, so that is the real enemy costing time and fuel. Yes buses are getting cleaner and greener, but then so are cars.

~

So how about opening up the Northern Busway to other vehicles, with an appropriately high toll to keep it at a free flow? The other vehicles using it would save time and fuel, and there would be a few less on the parallel motorway. Oh and yes I know Transit's argument about not doing that until the Victoria Park widening project is completed - which in itself is a good reason to seriously consider tolls on the Harbour bridge and its immediate approaches to fund it.

Wellington International Airport's rock?

OK, so what the hell is THIS all about? It's creative yes but attractive? It's the design for the expansion of Wellington airport's international terminal wing (note the ambitiously hopeful thought that Singapore Airlines might decide to service Wellington, hmmm).

~

On the outside it looks out of place, bizarre even, on the inside it looks like you're sitting in a cave. Yes I know there is a desire to make an impact, and most airport terminals are "the same", but hold on a second. The main impact I get is "it's not like an airport, but I could get lost inside this".

~

At one point the worst thing about Wellington airport was the old Air NZ domestic terminal, which is now long gone with the new terminal which is reasonably functional and quite pleasant to use. There is a need to expand some capacity at the international wing, mainly because typically 3 or 4 flights arrive and depart within three slots of an early AM peak, mid afternoon and late evening. However, I don't know if this design is quite right. Nevertheless it will make the airport environment less clinical and if it provide enough space for three times the expected passengers it WILL be comfortable. You see the best airports are the ones that don't seem packed, but can take you, with room for your bags, and a friend to spread out, and let you know when you need to know, when to board. It's nice to have that without lounge access! I'm unsure if this design makes it easy to use, imagine running to a flight through this, you don't have a clear sight to a gate and where to go, and what to avoid. Interesting to see what views others have, especially Not PC.

~

Eye of the Fish has more comments and TV3 has a fly through video of the terminal.

Hope for Cuba?

Following Castro's surprisingly short statement of resignation, President Bush and Prime Minister Gordon Brown have both called for Cuba to transition towards liberal democracy. Bush said:

~

"Eventually this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections, and I mean free and I mean fair, not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as being true democracy,"

~

I would hope those of the liberal left might actually agree with Bush, for once. Just on that point, go on, show you DO actually believe in liberal democracy. After all according to Cuba's official mouthpiece "45 years have passed and the overwhelming majority of Cubans remain unyielding in their support of the Revolution and the undisputed and reinvigorated leadership of Fidel Castro” so why fear elections and free speech?

~

The so called "genocidal war" of the economic embargo might end then, although I would have thought the embargo, as an anti-globalisation measure, should be welcomed by socialists. Why would they want to trade with the great capitalist enemy?

~

Meanwhile, the truth of Cuban socialism is, like that of almost all dictatorships, opulence for the rulers. Castro's life of luxury is reported in the Daily Telegraph, as evidence from videotapes smuggled out by an ex.girlfriend of one of Castro's sons shows:

~

"The series, titled The Secret life of Fidel Castro, depicts his main residential compound, Punto Cero, or Point Zero, in western Havana. Monday's episode showed Mr Castro dressed casually before a banquet, inspecting the elaborate dinnerware on the dinner table, his grandchildren playing with relatives and Antonio zooming along the patio on an electric scooter. It pictures the spacious compound and carefully landscaped garden and reveals that many of the family are wearing designer clothes. The house is decorated with wooden chests and Cuban handicrafts. A large-screen television monitors foreign news channels."

~

Of course it is neither here nor there for Castro's sycophants that he has what he denies fellow Cubans - access to free media.

~

So who are his sycophants?

Top of my list is London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, great friend of Cuban authoritarian one party rule. Ken Livingstone loves Castro.

However add to that list George Galloway (mate of dictators far and wide), Naomi Campbell (brainless without beauty), Steven Spielberg (though he isn't keen on Castro's mates in Beijing), Oliver Stone (why doesn't he move there?) and Diego Maradona (he has a tattoo of the thug).

~

The Independent has an excellent although lengthy entry outlining many bits of information about Cuba.

~

So what might Cubans hope for?

~

Access to the internet, since it has been illegal since 2004 for private citizens to access it.

Mobile phones or computers, since it is illegal to own those without government permission (which is not common).

Red Cross access to prisons, which Cuba denies.

The end to imprisonment for "likelihood of committing a crime".

The end to imprisonment of journalists for criticising the regime.

Freedom of movement (the right to leave Cuba).

~

Let's hope 2008 is the year all of the above is granted to Cubans.

Fidel Castro resigns

Good for Cuba, perhaps. Like some other authoritarian criminal states (Syria, North Korea), the principle for power is nepotism - something that the sycophants of Cuba, like Ken Livingstone and Matt Robson, might reflect on.
~
I hoped he'd die before an orderly transition of power, but it is difficult to tell whether his brother will make radical reforms - opening up a system of oppression to free speech, and allow people to get on with their lives without the state crushing them. Raul has a few months to prove himself.
~
You might read how Cuba treats political dissidents to see how good to the people it is, and you might look twice at its official health statistics on child mortality and life expectancy - given that authoritarian regimes are not very reliable on telling the truth.
~
Let's hope Raul opens up the mental hospitals and prisons to the political prisoners, allows a free press and radio, and starts granting Cubans individual rights. He might start finding that if he holds free and fair elections, US sanctions would evaporate.
~
However, somehow, I don't think many of Cuba's supporters really want that.

So I own a bank, well..

My taxes get to pay for the losses and guarantee the operation of the bank, but I don't get a dividend if it makes a profit (there is no hope in hell that Labour would cut the top tax rate). Worse of all, if it keeps losing money, I keep having to pay for it, but I can't sell my "shares" in it.

~

I don't even use it.

Thanks to Alastair Darling.

~

Should Northern Rock been allowed to fail? Well, sad to say for all of those with accounts in the bank - yes. Your investment in Northern Rock is not a risk I should have to bear. I don't expect you to bear my risk in spreading my money among four different banks, people with shares don't expect everyone else to cover the loss of any capital value.

~

Yes the government guarantee of deposits was the start, the start of the state bearing the losses, the state being the bank of last resort. Now the nationalisation is more like being put in administration, which is pretty much what would have happened anyway - although it may have been a little more brutal for depositors.

~

It might not all be bad, according to the Daily Telegraph the UK government may yet make money out of it but...

~

"Now that the company is part of the public sector this profit, which will come from selling off its mortgage book, could help improve the public finances, reducing the need for future tax increases. However, in order for the bank to turn in a profit, it will have to be managed well. This means jobs will have to be cut, and the homes of those Rock customers who can't keep up their repayments will have to be repossessed. To the horror of Whitehall, it is now faced with the prospect of doing all this dirty work itself. Taxpayers must hope it has the stomach to do so."

Indeed, I can only hope that it does. A nationalised bank that acts commercially, hmmm. According to Shadow Chancellor George Osborne addressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

"You are introducing unprecedented, sweeping, draconian powers that will let you nationalise any other bank or deposit-taking institution in Britain by ministerial fiat. That is something not even Michael Foot dreamt of and it will create further uncertainly in financial markets and do further damage to Britain's reputation"

That in itself is disturbing, and perhaps the only thing saving the reputation is the impression that Gordon Brown himself is really behind this, and he is no Michael Foot. I can only hope the damned thing can be privatised and the relevant legislation repealed.