Bits and pieces

Well in traditional English winter style I am crook - hopefully I will be fine for flying back to NZ in a week's time! So just a few pieces of comment about what is going on:

^

1. Energy strategy. Well it isn't my one, could be a lot worse, but is populated by a few oddities like David Parker's comment on electric cars. Crusader Rabbit is right on this as is Kane Bunce. Let me place a bet on whoever wants to take it up - I will bet £100 (yes £ not $NZ) that there will be no more than one kerbside power point for electric cars in New Zealand (that one will be a demonstration), and that there will not be 100 electric cars in New Zealand (trolley buses don't count!). I have an alternative energy strategy:

^

- Remove all restrictions on energy lines companies entering in the generation market;

- Privatise the three generating SOEs with a combination of sale and distribution of shares;

- Reform the RMA to respect private property right as a first step towards full replacement of planning law with private property rights;

- Scrap EECA.

^

The price of electricity rising makes it profitable to invest in more supply, and more likely people will invest in energy efficiency measures, removing the RMA restrictions will make it easier to build supply.

^

2. Party pill regulation

^

Why don't they just fuck off? Seriously. Stop protecting people from their own idiocy, it enables them to breed and produce more idiots. Has cannabis prohibition increased or reduced its availability among young people? As Cactus Kate says, Jim Anderton is conflicted on this - his own conservative stance is due to family tragedy. Sorry Jim, lots of people ENJOY party pills harmlessly, like people enjoy drinking and enjoy being promiscuous and enjoy eating high fat sugary meals - You are NOT the nation's dad. Stop being such a bloody catholic killjoy wanting to stop people having fun you don't understand or participate in. Some fun is risky and dangerous to those who choose to enjoy it - but it is a damned sight safer than being an authoritarian politician. Why do New Zealanders so enjoy telling others what to do?

^

3. Telecom's property rights handed over to competitors

^

Frankly Don Brash's final shame is voting for this atrocious pandering to the lobbying of Telecom's competitors over Telecom's owners. Instead of buying Telecom themselves or investing in competing infrastructure, they got the government to make Telecom give it to them at a price they were willing to pay. The Alliance's telecommunications policy of 1999 has effectively been implemented, with support from the National Party. Under Brash, the Nats were going to at least consider a cost/benefit analysis of this proposal (it's not freedom, but at least economics might have given an objective assessment of its merits and risks), but that seemed to evaporate. David Farrar's sad betrayal of most of his principles on pragmatic grounds is notable, but what is not so transparent is the gigantic transfer of wealth from Telecom shareholders, from superannuation and insurance funds, to mums and dads - to the likes of big companies like Telstra. In Parliament only ACT stood up for private property rights, and the Maori Party showed themselves to be craven pork barrel driven racists wanting a slice of the Telecom pie - like little Hugo Chavez's ready to steal whatever isn't there's. One of the left's bitterest little feuds has been won - showing how little backbone most of the "right" in Parliament really has. I've written enough on this many times over, but what grates is how little opposition we really have. Glad you voted National now?

^

4. Brash's valedictory speech

As Not PC has said, Brash was never a good politician - not one the National Party and it simpering appeasers could stomach. The National Party that occasionally trots out freedom, but really believes that the future lies in statism and out doing Labour with statism. National which can never stand up for capitalism, free enterprise, celebrate success, decry envy politics and believe in principles - even when it nearly won an election. Not PC once again has said much of what I agree with, and no, Brash wont be joining ACT to become an MP again, but never has a National leader instilled such hatred and fear among the left. John Key warms them, in a way no National leader ever should. Remember Muldoon, for all of his vile statism and bigotry, never ever conceded that Labour had a point - he dismissed them as buffoons, and won three times in a row (please don't waste time with the tired FPP Labour got more votes argument, he won). Brash had none of the statism and bigotry of Muldoon, despite attempts by some advisors to taint him with the latter for some votes - but he made his opponents quiver. He also had some in the media out for his guts (such as TV3's Alliance voting/Green sympathising John Campbell) because of his popularity. It will be another generation before National gets a similar leader again, I suspect such a person is probably only in high school now, whoever she is.

Drink “a descent scent of a Korean soil floats in a mouth”

Not PC’s excellent beer o’clock posts collectively are quite a mini-wiki of different beers you can choose, but you haven’t had alcohol until you’ve drunk north Korean liquor.
^
Alexei Sayle’s “song” “Didn’t you kill my brother” was number one for weeks in 1985 and included the line “I like North Korean sherry”. Now it is good stuff, and I am sure it keeps army boots polished, but if you want a really good review of North Korean liquor try this.
^
My favourite is “Pulrosul. Adder liquor. Contains actual snake. Alcohol 60%. "Tastes a bit fishy for its high alcohol concentration. Some find it unpleasant” as it was on sale at a North Korean trade exhibition in Wellington a few years ago for $100, which is extortion. However I understand they sold out, as students found them “cool”.
^
Sacha Baron Cohen could probably do a film about North Korean peculiarities, except the North Korean secret police do abduct and assassinate. The authoritarian Kazakh regime was risky enough to poke fun at methinks. However it is far more appropriate to simply watch the 1984 movies, there is only so much laughing one can do when 100,000 men, women and children are starving working 18 hour days 7 days a week in gulags.

Ahmadinejad hosts holocaust denial conference

What a prick, so blinded by his hatred of Israel, that he is prepared to ignore the mountains of historical evidence, the testimony of those who were there, those who found the concentration camps. The Holocaust was perhaps the most orchestrated, deliberate, coldly calculated systematic slaughter of a people ever undertaken in world history. There have been brutal genocides, and brutal regimes, but the rounding up, transporting, concentrating and executing Jews en masse as deliberate state policy is difficult to parallel. To question it is like questioning whether a nuclear weapon went off at Hiroshima, whether Pearl Harbour was bombed or whether there were political prisoners in the Warsaw Pact. Ahmadinejad is a buffoon, I just think he is stupid and crazy, but a stupid crazy man pursuing nuclear weapons. His regime is despicable and evil, spreading nonsense from hate filled fools.

^

His conference includes the likes of David Duke, former KKK Imperial Wizard and onetime Lousiana State Representative. David Duke has endorsed a black homeland for African Americans to all be moved to, and blames Israel for 9/11 and founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Nice, I wonder if Persians count in his world? They do if they can kill Jews I guess.

^

Another bizarre figure going to Ahmadinejad's sick joke conference is Michele Renouf. Australia's most disgraceful ex. beauty contestant (though what did it take to win Miss Newcastle 1968), married briefly to Sir Frank Renouf (who divorced her when he discovered she lied about her heritage, and she got nothing from the divorce). Michele Renouf is anti-semitic, a friend of David Irving. Stupid evil bitch.

^

Besides it being a sideshow, it is telling that Ahmadinejad thinks it is appropriate to hold a conference like this. The Iranian Foreign Minister is quoted as saying " the aim is neither to "confirm nor deny" but to "create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe" about the Jewish experience under Nazi occupation". The thinkers are discredited bigots. Although I disagree with laws restricting the free speech of hate filled charlatans like David Irving, the idea that Iran believes in free speech is without credibility. It is one of the most censorship driven governments in the world. Ahmadinejad's call for freedom is hypocrisy par excellence. His government censors Youtube of all things.

^

The Daily Telegraph comment that "What should surely be occurring to any responsible observer of this appalling conference, which has gathered together notoriously anti-Semitic figures from all over the world, is that Iran under its present leadership is a dangerously hateful and malevolent force whose intentions in the Middle East can never be other than malign and destabilising." is quite true.

^

Imagine if apartheid era South Africa held a conference on eugenics and racial superiority. This is the same. It should provoke protests, burning of Iranian flags and official condemnations from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Iranian Ambassador.

^

Shouldn't it?

^

and a bullet to the head of Ahmadinejad wouldn't go amiss either. If you met any holocaust survivors you would understand why.

The Economist on how ethical food isn't

Local food, organic food and fairtrade food. They all sound good don't they? They are part of the mantra of the Greens. The idea behind each of them is:

^

Local food is "better for the environment" because transport is "bad" for the environment, and it also appeals to the inherent positive communitarianism of the Greens, and the socialist xenophobia;

^

Organic food is "better for the environment" and "healthier" for you because it doesn't involve "artificial chemicals" (because, apparently, natural ones are benign, you know, like snake venom) and it is better for the environment because of it; and

^

Fairtrade products are "better for society" because you are paying a lot more for a commodity, ensuring the producers in developing countries get more money and be wealthier. In other words, it is about paying people on very low incomes more for what you buy off them.

^

In the childlike world of simple platitudes this all sounds very good and plausible. In fact, as the Economist reports this week with its cover article, most of this is about feeling good, rather than doing something constructive. When examined more closely, applying any one of the "local food, organic food, fairtrade" labels to something may either be a waste of money, or worse, counterproductive to what you actually want to achieve.

^

The local food argument has already been blown out of the water by the Lincoln University study and a separate report by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which also says that there is less environmental impact importing tomatoes from Spain during winter, than growing them in heated greenhouses in Britain, and that half of the UK food vehicle miles are consumers driving to and from shops. This means it is better for food to be distributed from large supermarkets than people driving further to multiple smaller retailers. The NZ Greens have thankfully taken these finding and have written to their UK counterparts. So the local food argument is extremely dodgy, not helped by the massive protectionism for European agriculture under the Common Agricultural Policy. Removing this distortion would do far more for the environment (and lower food costs, and taxes in Europe) than any campaign for food miles, which is actually counter productive. Quite simply, the local food argument is a combination of misguided environmentalists and old fashioned trade protectionists. The UK farm lobby is in favour of it for old fashioned reasons, it helps them keep their prices up because people think they are helping the environment, when, much of the time, they are doing the opposite. You see, transport costs are only a small proportion of the energy used in food production.

^

However, while the NZ Greens appreciate this, they remain wedded to the latest money making enterprise of the food industry - organic food. The Economist quotes a number of researchers who counter claims that organic food is better for the environment. These come down to:

^

- Organic farming produces lower yields and requires much more land to be cultivated to produce the same amount of food. Dr. Norman Borlaug, an agricultural scientist, argues that environmentalists argue from the comfort of living in prosperity and is quoted saying "If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things". He points to how global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the land used increased by only 10%;

- Anthony Trewavas of Edinburgh University argues that organic farming uses more energy, because instead of fertiliser and pesticides, weeds are kept at bay by frequent ploughing and other energy intensive techniques;

- There is no evidence that organic foods are healthier or non-organic are less healthy.

^

Organic food may, at best, be a good choice on the basis of taste and quality. Certain foods may be tastier and more enjoyable because of how they are produced. However, this is not simply an organic matter. Indeed there are big differences between non-organic food produced in Europe and that produced in Australia and New Zealand in some cases, if simply because subsidies in Europe encourage far greater use of fertilisers and pesticides than down under. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the word "organic" has become a useful tool for food sellers wanting to put a premium on their products based on perception rather than reality.

^

Fairtrade food is a bigger con. While sometimes local food may make sense, and sometimes organic food may be more enjoyable, fair trade is entirely counterproductive.

^

The concern is that low prices are "unfair". Well they are not. Low prices exist because not enough of a product is being sold compared to what is being produced. They are a signal to stop production and move to something more profitable. Fairtrade buyers guarantee price floors for producers and pay a guaranteed premium over the market price with the benevolent notion of encouraging producers to develop their families and communities. Unfortunately it also perpetuates production and may increase production of commodities that are already oversupplied. If Fairtrade coffee demand increases, more will be produced, reducing the price for the rest of the coffee market making those producers poorer. The fundamental problem is that too much coffee is being grown - paying more for it EXACERBATES that. It is basic economics. Some argue that the high price enables them to fund diversification, but the Economist points out that there is hardly much incentive to diversify away from something paying you such a premium!

^

Fairtrade certification also often is available to small co-operative producers, not family owned firms or plantations because the certifiers can't guarantee the workers get the premium. In other words, it is also about changing the corporate form of producers, which may shut out many workers who cannot afford to get into a co-operative (the most poor).

^

However, the biggest argument is that it is wasteful. Fairtrade retailers see buyers as premium purchasers prepared to pay extra, when one economist calculates that 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee gets to the producer, as everyone else in the chain gets their cut. People pay more for it so those selling take advantage of it - meaning, of course, there is less money available for people to spend on other goods and services.

^

There is room to do more research on this, but it is clear that the words "organic" and "fairtrade" are potentially a major ripoff of consumers that does little for what is claimed. They are not necessarily healthier and does not benefit the environment, or producers in poor countries - as it encourages them to produce more of what people don't want. It is economics rubbing against good intentions, and as is almost always the case, non-evidence based slogans might make you feel good, but they wont do you, your wallet, the environment or the world any good.

Pinochet's dead..

As Not PC says, don't mourn him. His free market policies and overthrowing an authoritarian socialist pinup (Allende) do not justify suppression of free speech, murdering, torturing and imprisoning opponents. Margaret Thatcher's support for him has been her biggest mistake and the biggest black mark against her name in my book. I understand why she did it (Falklands and his free market policies), but it never excused his oppression of Chilean freedom.

^

Chile is doing very well thank you as a free open democracy, WITH the free market policies Pinochet implemented, but in spite of the dark period of oppression.

^

I'm glad Pinochet has gone, and look forward to seeing Castro drop dead next, but as you'll soon see, I don't expect the leftwing blogs to celebrate both their deaths equally. I hope they prove me and PC wrong.