More on blog roll

I've added a few more blogs to my disjointed sidebar in the last few days, all of them liberal/libertarian in one form of another - specifically:

Sir Humphreys
Socialist Free Haven
Who Cares
NZ Pundit
Lindsay Mitchell
Teenage Pundit and
Oswald Bastable.

Some are new, some not so new, but all have posted articles recently that I liked so it is just courtesy to list them :)

End of the Carbon Tax

The government is canning the Carbon Tax - probably thanks to NZ First and United Future, making the Greens livid and making David Farrar cheer.

It follows a 400 page report from the Ministry of the Environment which concluded "the proposed charge was unfair, inefficient and unlikely to substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions".

Given how committed so many in that Ministry are to the ecological agenda, this is damning stuff. I have dealt with a few MfE officials in my time, and they are at the least, very ecology conscious, and at the other extreme would have been very comfortable with a Green Party Minister. The Greens should read this report and see what an organisation that believes in their objectives does when it objectively analyses a policy - this sort of turnaround is not a small one.

However, as much as the Greens wanted NZ to be part of the moral leadership of the world - the only reason other countries signed up to Kyoto was because they would be net recipients - because they are experiencing economic decline, flat population growth (e.g Russia) or significant improvements in the efficiencies of their industries (e.g. former Soviet bloc countries) which means they are cutting net carbon emissions.

Moral leadership was to cost NZ a 0.2% decrease in GDP by 2012. That, under current values, is around $234 million a year - $59 for every man, woman and child that you would not be able to spend every year. The Greens would say this is a small price to pay for moral leadership - is it?

More fundamentally, the Greens are wrong - the planet is not burning, the world is not coming to an end - it has been ending for centuries, there was an ice age imminent in the 1970s, now it is global warming. The scaremongering and hatred of the productive with phrases like "They are putting the corporate pursuit of short-term profits ahead of the planet’s and our grandchildren’s future" are irresponsible.

These profits keep people fed, clothed and sheltered - they employ people, they produce the goods that we use everyday, they allow people to communicate, move, socialise and enjoy their lives. They pay for the professionals, the medication, the facilities for our infrastructure from plumbing to healthcare to heating. Most people don't make profits to put in a money bin like Uncle Scrooge, they do so to produce and consume and spend on what they want - which is to spend on what others produce.

As PC said some weeks ago, the question is whether government interference or benign neglect are better approaches when dealing with global warming.

Unfortunately the final call from the Greens was concern about what services will get cut or taxes increased to pay for Dr Cullen's "loss of revenue" - how about less government spending on bureaucracies, subsidies and crazy rail projects?

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...