Bolivia's new socialist President

Also reported by Clint Heine, It looks like Evo Morales, leader of the Movement Towards Socialism party and member of the indigenous Aymara people will win the Bolivian Presidential election. Now Bolivia is ranked as a partly free country by Freedon House, but this victory is being acclaimed by many worldwide as a victory for indigenous people and the left.

Can the people of Bolivia look forward to a brighter future? Well that is less clear. Many on the right will fear him, because of his declared anti-Americanism and support for Castro, but it is a little more complicated than that.

He wants to legalise growth of the coca leaf, if not cocaine – which will challenge the US War on Drugs. This is good. The coca leaf is used extensively in Bolivia for its narcotic and pain relieving qualities, and banning it clearly has failed. As a locally used crop (as well as the basis for cocaine), Morales campaigned in favour of it, but will face pressure if the US threatens to cut aid because of his policies. This is sad - the war on drugs is one of the greatest travesties of US government policy and should be ended because it has failed miserably, and it is immoral to persecute adult users of drugs. It is also immoral to persecute the people who grow the crop.

More ominously Morales has talked about nationalising private company investment in oil and gas, although he is more likely to renegotiate contracts with foreign energy companies. That will cost Bolivia dearly. Curiously he said his party will respect private property rights, although “vacant unproductive land” would be turned over to farmers with little or no land (what sort of farmer has no land?). Though none of the reports I have found has said much more about his policies.

Morales is an ally of Castro and Venezuelan bullyboy Hugo Chavez, neither are friends of individual freedom or tolerate political dissent – it would be a disaster if Bolivia slipped towards a one-party state like Venezuela is doing. However, it will also be sad for Bolivia if by renegotiating the contracts with foreign energy companies, he strips so much value from them that they leave – or stop investing. Hopefully he will renegotiate genuinely – not with the threat of force – and all parties can come away satisfied. Hopefully he will not succumb to the corruption often rampant in Latin America, and confiscates wealth for the aggrandisement of himself and his cronies.

Brazil's left wing President Lula de Silva campaigned on socialism, but has largely maintained the liberalising reforms of his predecessors, when his own economic illiteracy hit reality (although he has been tainted by corruption) - hopefully Morales will face the same. Time will tell if he avoids being the state bullies that Castro and Chavez are, or the corrupt leaders that his predecessors were.

Auckland rail money gone - like that!

How do you wipe out the value of hundreds of millions of dollars in an instant? Easy - spend it on a railway in New Zealand.

The government is going to spend $540-$600 million of your money on upgrading Auckland’s commuter rail network (which it bought from Tranz Rail for $81 million in 2001), which means finishing the double tracking of the Western line, a branch line to Manukau city and some resignalling and other improvements. Divided by Auckland households, that is around $1800 a household - would you rather have that money in your pocket, spent on healthcare, your kid's local school or on some railway tracks (before the trains have even run on them)?

So an asset that had a book value of $81 million (I’m being generous in not considering market value) is going to have at least $540 million poured into it, and after that? It will still have a book value of $81 million. Fabulous investment isn’t it? Could the private sector take money by force and eliminate its value so quickly and get away with it?

Ah, there are profits to be made from that investment that aren't realised in capital. Um no. No profits, in fact you can't even cover your day to day operating costs.

Ah, the rail advocates say, you forget the social and environmental benefits of being able to run more passenger trains because of reduced car traffic and traffic congestion. No I haven’t. They are just too infinitesimal to measure. The passenger train operational costs are 80% subsidised and the majority of users were former bus patrons. Many of those buses were not subsidised – so there is no net gain at all there in terms of congestion, just increased cost (a few buses off the road will make virtually no difference). The shift from car to rail is also very low – and makes virtually no impact on congestion - work done by the ARC a few years ago indicated that road traffic speeds would be improved by less than 0.5km/h. This taxpayer funding is around 50% more than the cost of building the Mt Roskill and Manukau extensions of SH20 (both of which will make a noticeable difference to congestion) - and those are funded from petrol tax, so are paid for by road users.

Remember the $540 million for rail does NOT include money for running the trains, or upgrading stations or new trains.

So should Auckland ratepayers be thrilled? Well being saved from funding the rail track infrastructure upgrade is one thing – but the quid pro quo is that capital expenditure on stations and trains will be entirely funded by ARTA, which means ARC rates and Auckland Regional Holdings dividends and cash assets. Operating costs continue to be subsidised 60% by Land Transport NZ (your petrol tax) and 40% from ARC rates. That will cost ratepayers a packet, and you wont see congestion reduce. The marginal difference to congestion made by these projects is tiny – because rail is very expensive, and most trains don’t go near where most Aucklanders work. Buses do better, they carry around 30% of commuters into downtown Auckland, but they are not sexy – and some of them are not subsidised. It costs little to put in bus lanes, or other measures to speed up bus journeys.

Ah but the trains provide Aucklanders with an option to bypass congestion. Well, if you can walk or bike or bus quickly to a station and there is another station on your line that is close to where you want to go -yes, if the train stopping at every station is faster than driving continuously. However only 13% of Auckland employment is downtown where most of the trains terminate. Look at a map of Auckland and where most people live, it isn't near the railway stations.

Of course the Greens want to spend even more money, electrifying the network (when that has not been proven to be worth the additional cost) and building lines all over the place, with little care for where the money comes from to pay for it - you see it is ok to make unnecessary journeys, wasting electricity and other people's money, as long as you are on an electric train.

Iran bans Western Music

Yes, the nuclear weapon seeking, child soldier using, terrorist backing, Holocaust denying Islamic Republic of Iran is now banning western music according to the BBC.

Kenny G may no longer be background music on Iranian television - (lucky them).

None of this is on the official Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting news site, just lots of bland news about co-operation with other countries - much like most authoritarian regimes have for official news.

Note also PC's report on how limp wristed the West is about Iran - the big question is what to do with it? Should its nuclear facilities lie there untouched until it gets nukes and is as untouchable as North Korea? I guess the Greens would say yes... but for how long can you let snoozing bullies lie? It will be too late when Iran is found to have sold a nuclear warhead to terrorists who let it off in Tel Aviv, Los Angeles, Sydney or London. More on this later...

Unseen North Korea

The BBC carries a series of photos from an anonymous businessman who took some images rather freely in the country - they show a sad, hard working people, struggling to survive and large empty roads.

Smoking ban for England?

England may have total ban on smoking in public places, because a partial ban (for pubs that serve food). is considered “unenforceable” as reports the Telegraph. This will follow similar bans soon to come in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Unfortunately, none of the debate about this in England is about what it should be about – property rights.

The arguments are always vacuous claims about the “rights” of smokers to smoke wherever they want (which is nonsense) or the “rights” of workers to not be exposed to smoke.

The only right at stake here is the property right of the owner of the premises. Either you have the right to permit (or ban) any legal activity on your own property or not. That means the right to ban smoking in YOUR pub or to allow it, or make it compulsory. The same would apply to a dress code, a language code or allowing people to perform sexual acts or enforcing silence. It is NOT a place that anyone else has to right to enter except on your terms – and that includes employees. I watched an absurd item on the BBC news last night with a pub owner saying he wished smoking was banned in pubs, because he doesn't like it - as if anyone is stopping him from banning it! Clearly he prefers the income from smoking customers to having cleaner air inside his pub - but he should make that tradeoff, not the government.

and I am speaking as a non-smoker, who has asthma and much prefers pubs which have no smoking, so I have no vested interest from that perspective, but I have an interest as a property owner. I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do on my property, as long as I am not initiating force against anyone else on my property - and unless I force someone to remain on my property while I or others smoke, then I am not infringing on anyone's rights.