Don't let the leftwing vapid minnow standing for the US Presidency erode the tru value of this day
29 August 2008
Tolls and PPPs
Given Maurice Williamson's minor faux pas while I was in Ireland, I thought I should put in my rather short (you'll be relieved) free and rank on what I think of what the Nats have said on this:
1. I'd welcome opening up investment in roads to the private sector, but the more the private sector can carry the risk (and any profits) the better. Think, for example, if the Auckland Harbour Bridge was privatised, even by lease to avoid Treaty of Waitangi/Public Works Act issues, including SH1 from Spaghetti Junction north and from Constellation Drive south (both being where other state highways intersect). The new owner could toll it, could investigate, design, build, finance, operate the second crossing. If very clever it could even work with the state to refund road user charges and fuel taxes paid for using the motorway (or the state could pay the equivalent to offset the tolls to the company). Let it be the example to New Zealand of how the private sector can build, operate, own and manage a highway - see how the tolls will go up at peak times which is exactly when the second crossing is needed, so exactly the users who should pay for it. See how the tolls will be marginal at off peak periods, see how private bus companies can take advantage of a less congested crossing to provide more services for those who wont pay the toll. Oh and while we're at it, see how the Victoria Park Viaduct widening/tunnelling can be financed the same way.
2. Tolling for new road capacity is good, but the scope to do this in New Zealand is limited due to the nature of its road network, the volumes of traffic involved and the ready availability of other routes. However, it could be considered as a means of moving away from fuel tax.
What I DO want to ask Maurice Williamson is:
Will National abolish the regional fuel taxes?
Will National abolish automatic inflation based indexation of fuel excise duty and road user charges?
Will National consider shifting from taxing motorists and property owners to pay for roads, to motorists paying to use the roads?
The first would be consistent with how National voted in Parliament, as would the second. The third would be consistent with National's policy when it was voted out of office. It's technically and economically feasible to go down this path, and a sensible way forward would be to commercialise road management, and then consider how to privatise it.
1. I'd welcome opening up investment in roads to the private sector, but the more the private sector can carry the risk (and any profits) the better. Think, for example, if the Auckland Harbour Bridge was privatised, even by lease to avoid Treaty of Waitangi/Public Works Act issues, including SH1 from Spaghetti Junction north and from Constellation Drive south (both being where other state highways intersect). The new owner could toll it, could investigate, design, build, finance, operate the second crossing. If very clever it could even work with the state to refund road user charges and fuel taxes paid for using the motorway (or the state could pay the equivalent to offset the tolls to the company). Let it be the example to New Zealand of how the private sector can build, operate, own and manage a highway - see how the tolls will go up at peak times which is exactly when the second crossing is needed, so exactly the users who should pay for it. See how the tolls will be marginal at off peak periods, see how private bus companies can take advantage of a less congested crossing to provide more services for those who wont pay the toll. Oh and while we're at it, see how the Victoria Park Viaduct widening/tunnelling can be financed the same way.
2. Tolling for new road capacity is good, but the scope to do this in New Zealand is limited due to the nature of its road network, the volumes of traffic involved and the ready availability of other routes. However, it could be considered as a means of moving away from fuel tax.
What I DO want to ask Maurice Williamson is:
Will National abolish the regional fuel taxes?
Will National abolish automatic inflation based indexation of fuel excise duty and road user charges?
Will National consider shifting from taxing motorists and property owners to pay for roads, to motorists paying to use the roads?
The first would be consistent with how National voted in Parliament, as would the second. The third would be consistent with National's policy when it was voted out of office. It's technically and economically feasible to go down this path, and a sensible way forward would be to commercialise road management, and then consider how to privatise it.
Social report makes assumed value judgments
The NZ Herald reports on the Ministry of Social Development's 2008 Social report which produces statistics of "social indicators" to determine if things are getting "better or worse". The headline was that the "rich poor pay gap is shrinking". This is measured by a simple ratio of the earnings of the top 20% of income earners over the bottom 20%. It doesn't measure whether the bottom 20% are in abject poverty or quite comfortably fed, clothed and housed, what it does measure is the envy ratio.
Apparently the "rich" (a word Idiot Savant and others on the left are addicted to using as a term of implied abuse) are earning 2.6 times that of those in the "poor" category, a drop from 2.7 the year before. That is apparently "good". Why? I'm not sure. After all it could mean the bottom 20% have bettered themselves, but it could also mean the top 20% have suffered a decline in living standards. Both are quite different. However you need to believe that this matters. If the top 20% earned 10 times the bottom 20% it could indicate their success, and indeed in London I am sure the ratio is bigger because of the relative success of the financial sector in attracting people who earn very high incomes. It only matters if you believe that wealth is distributed not earned. If you believe that wealth is something dished out by someone powerful, not something received for producing or trading value. However, I wouldn't expect someone in the Ministry of Social Development to understand this as none of them do this.
Let's see some other "improvements". Qualifications at bachelors degree level or above have increased. This of course could be meaningless. Germany is overflowing with graduates, but many have few business skills, and it hasn't helped Germany increase its net wealth - how useful are these degrees, how good are they? How literate and intelligent are the graduates? Who knows??
How about things that have gotten worse? "Housing affordability" has a flipside, which is capital assets of those owning their homes. However, the property market is now correcting itself somewhat, improving affordability but damaging the capital people have tied up in their homes. Winners and losers whichever way the market goes, which raises the issue as to why affordability is better than asset valuation.
Then something that hasn't changed - "potentially hazardous driving", which of course can be anytime you actually drive above 20 km/h, since driving is by its very nature "potentially hazardous". Perhaps it means speeding, but then again how does anyone really know this? There isn't real time monitoring of every driver all of the time.
Then "obesity" hasn't changed. Which of course isn't true, as it has changed for thousands, as many have seen it increase others decrease - but if you're a collectivist thinking bureaucrat you find that impossible to manage so you average it out (presuming you know the facts around people's weights).
So I ask the question, what does the report usefully do? It's useful if you're a statist and want to know how to intervene in a wide range of areas, but beyond that it is just a snapshot. Ruth Dyson will use it to show "Labour is good" by saying "it showed New Zealanders overall wellbeing was improving".
Funnily enough most people focus on improving their own wellbeing as a matter of course - and it's the government that likes to take away a third of your income while you do that. Imagine how much wellbeing would improve if the government took less.
Apparently the "rich" (a word Idiot Savant and others on the left are addicted to using as a term of implied abuse) are earning 2.6 times that of those in the "poor" category, a drop from 2.7 the year before. That is apparently "good". Why? I'm not sure. After all it could mean the bottom 20% have bettered themselves, but it could also mean the top 20% have suffered a decline in living standards. Both are quite different. However you need to believe that this matters. If the top 20% earned 10 times the bottom 20% it could indicate their success, and indeed in London I am sure the ratio is bigger because of the relative success of the financial sector in attracting people who earn very high incomes. It only matters if you believe that wealth is distributed not earned. If you believe that wealth is something dished out by someone powerful, not something received for producing or trading value. However, I wouldn't expect someone in the Ministry of Social Development to understand this as none of them do this.
Let's see some other "improvements". Qualifications at bachelors degree level or above have increased. This of course could be meaningless. Germany is overflowing with graduates, but many have few business skills, and it hasn't helped Germany increase its net wealth - how useful are these degrees, how good are they? How literate and intelligent are the graduates? Who knows??
How about things that have gotten worse? "Housing affordability" has a flipside, which is capital assets of those owning their homes. However, the property market is now correcting itself somewhat, improving affordability but damaging the capital people have tied up in their homes. Winners and losers whichever way the market goes, which raises the issue as to why affordability is better than asset valuation.
Then something that hasn't changed - "potentially hazardous driving", which of course can be anytime you actually drive above 20 km/h, since driving is by its very nature "potentially hazardous". Perhaps it means speeding, but then again how does anyone really know this? There isn't real time monitoring of every driver all of the time.
Then "obesity" hasn't changed. Which of course isn't true, as it has changed for thousands, as many have seen it increase others decrease - but if you're a collectivist thinking bureaucrat you find that impossible to manage so you average it out (presuming you know the facts around people's weights).
So I ask the question, what does the report usefully do? It's useful if you're a statist and want to know how to intervene in a wide range of areas, but beyond that it is just a snapshot. Ruth Dyson will use it to show "Labour is good" by saying "it showed New Zealanders overall wellbeing was improving".
Funnily enough most people focus on improving their own wellbeing as a matter of course - and it's the government that likes to take away a third of your income while you do that. Imagine how much wellbeing would improve if the government took less.
Farewell Winston but...
Whilst the Serious Fraud Office investigation into NZ First finances should certainly see Winston removed from his Ministerial positions (if not then Helen Clark will have made a serious misjudgment), the question becomes whether NZ First will withdraw confidence and supply. If so, it might provoke the announcement of the election date, but it would also be likely that NZ First MPs would be looking for a new job. If not, then Labour has to ask itself whether it is comfortable governing reliant on a party that has proven itself to be at best slippery with the truth around its finances.
NZ First has never been popular with the mass media of course, partly because it has always couched itself as the party of the people who don't have a voice. NZ First is the party of talkback land, of the Waynes and Sharlenes who don't like the Chans who moved in next door with their nice car and children who are far more articulate than they are, who are suspicious of big business and think that "old" New Zealand was "taken away". The barely shrouded racism expressed (but probably not believed) by Winston Peters meant NZ First did worst in the likes of Wellington - NZ First is in effect the National Party of Rob Muldoon. It may be facing its swan song. Rarely does the media give the impression that NZ First is a party like others, but then again rarely does Winston Peters want this.
So let's move on. Does the degree of scrutiny that the media place upon NZ First ever get applied to the Green Party or the Maori Party? Who delves in the control-freakery of both? The anti-American hypocrisy of both parties, the strong emphasis on increasing the size of the welfare state, the unabashed racist agenda not to oppress a race, but to advantage one, their xenophobia about foreign investment.
Labour undoubtedly would do deals with both parties to stay in power, but where is the media scrutiny? National would almost certainly do a deal with the Maori Party, and wouldn't dismiss the Greens if it needed Green support to govern.
I acknowledge that NZ First's behaviour in recent months has raised serious issues, but fundamentally it is MORE important to consider what policies and who will be seeking to govern NZ in the next three years. The mainstream media loves a scandal, and is appropriately sinking its teeth into Winston Peters - but the same teeth could be sunk into all of the parties in Parliament - and with vigorous serious journalism, it would happen. Will it?
NZ First has never been popular with the mass media of course, partly because it has always couched itself as the party of the people who don't have a voice. NZ First is the party of talkback land, of the Waynes and Sharlenes who don't like the Chans who moved in next door with their nice car and children who are far more articulate than they are, who are suspicious of big business and think that "old" New Zealand was "taken away". The barely shrouded racism expressed (but probably not believed) by Winston Peters meant NZ First did worst in the likes of Wellington - NZ First is in effect the National Party of Rob Muldoon. It may be facing its swan song. Rarely does the media give the impression that NZ First is a party like others, but then again rarely does Winston Peters want this.
So let's move on. Does the degree of scrutiny that the media place upon NZ First ever get applied to the Green Party or the Maori Party? Who delves in the control-freakery of both? The anti-American hypocrisy of both parties, the strong emphasis on increasing the size of the welfare state, the unabashed racist agenda not to oppress a race, but to advantage one, their xenophobia about foreign investment.
Labour undoubtedly would do deals with both parties to stay in power, but where is the media scrutiny? National would almost certainly do a deal with the Maori Party, and wouldn't dismiss the Greens if it needed Green support to govern.
I acknowledge that NZ First's behaviour in recent months has raised serious issues, but fundamentally it is MORE important to consider what policies and who will be seeking to govern NZ in the next three years. The mainstream media loves a scandal, and is appropriately sinking its teeth into Winston Peters - but the same teeth could be sunk into all of the parties in Parliament - and with vigorous serious journalism, it would happen. Will it?
28 August 2008
Why would the Democrats excite anyone?
I've long been perplexed as to what drives those who get excited and engaged with the two major US political parties. The Demopublicans and the Republicrats are different only in the areas they don't overlap. However both are predominantly concerned with power, power over businesses, individuals, to spend other people's money and take that money, to give other people's money to businesses they prefer, taking more from those they don't. It's an absolute abomination against reason, and is little short of braindead.
Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.
However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.
Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.
Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.
Barack Obama is a lightweight style focused rather leftwing vaccilating Presidential candidate who is riding substantially on his race and youth to differentiate himself, and present himself as an agent of "change". Yet his "change" is little more than more taxes, more spending couched in words of "support" and an ever changing approach to foreign policy. He has proven he is no friend of free trade, having voted to substantially increase agricultural subsidies, including subsidies to produce nothing at a time of high food prices. He has had substantial links with rather nasty men.
However the difference between Obama and John McCain is not huge. Hillary Clinton's bizarre statement that "Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hang in the balance," is enormous hyperbole. I prefer McCain for reasons outlined before and I don't doubt McCain is better for New Zealand and indeed the world.
Yet stand back from it all and ask what is it really about? A man who talks of change, but with little substance riding on the back of image and his historic nomination from a racial point of view. A party painting the USA as being in despair, ignoring that it controls Congress and controlled both Houses far more often in post war history than the Republicans. It is truly the triumph of hyperbolic disinformation distributed with vapid alacrity.
Oh and don't believe I'll think the Republicans will be much better. However look for the hook, look for what the Democrats think they'll seriously change, and ask yourself why anyone would want to spend any time campaigning for this pablum - unless, of course, you expected to get some substantial benefit from more statism, which isn't what the USA was meant to be about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)