Yes in so many ways...
However I love Gman's comment "In what way is John Key like Barack Obama? Is it the lack of experience, the lack of policies or the lack of substance?"
03 September 2008
Why do I not want Labour to be re-elected?
Labour presents a vision of more government, more government subsidies, more middle class welfare and an uncomfortable level of statism across many aspects of everyday life and business. The failure of state health and education to deliver the expectations of the public is not something Labour has an answer to, beyond spending more money, which suits the interest groups that it gets succour from, such as the teaching and nurses unions. However, most disconcerting of all is Labour’s underlying message of class warfare.
You can be successful and quite wealthy under Labour, but you should be fitting in with its “visions” and “strategies” and you better be giving a lot back, because you owe it. Labour has an underlying suspicion of those “too” financially successful, as if they got there off the back of the workers, whereas it has a generous view of those who have failed. Labour sees those closer to the bottom as always deserving of more money, more assistance and that their circumstances are “no fault of their own”. It is the leftover legacy of socialism. The belief that, deep down, people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, and the successful shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with it”. Most of all it is the belief that the state is a force of good and it can intervene and do more good, most of the time.
I see the state as necessary to protect rights, not to grant privileges and take money from some and give to others (redistribution). I find the notion that the successful owe everyone else to be rather vile, but most of all I find the culture that says that everyone else owes you something, and you owe everyone else something to be most insidious.
Now the reasons to remove Labour from power are quite overwhelming. For me it is:
- The arrogant belief of the Labour Party that it knows best how to spend a significant proportion of people’s money, and its lack of accountability for wasting it. Taxpayers’ money is the government’s money and there is little appreciation of where it came from;
- The chilling view of Helen Clark that “the state is sovereign” showing scant regard for individual freedom;
- The culture of envy and sneering hatred for “the rich” and successful, particularly in business, that comes through in the general Labour attitude to “rich pricks” and the like;
- The almost complete lack of business experience or economic expertise in the Labour caucus, which is dominated by ex. teachers, union officials and public servants. That ISN’T representative of New Zealand (despite what Idiot Savant thinks);
- The sclerotic paucity of accountability and consumer driven reform of the education system under Labour, which is designed to serve what bureaucrats and the teaching unions think it best for education, not parents. Perhaps the greatest scope to open up innovation and cultural change in New Zealand would be in opening up education to be driven by users and providers in a virtuous circle seeking better performance from children;
- The insidious willingness of Labour to consider blunt Orwellian processes to monitor the lives of all children, regardless of their parents’ performance, as a response to the chronic child neglect and abuse by an underclass of barely functional adults;
- The lack of regard for private property rights whether it be homeowners on the one hand or large businesses on the other, or indeed the lack of willingness to use private property rights to deal with issues such as the foreshore and seabed;
- Complete emptiness of courage and ideas to manage the unmanageable burden of the public health system whereby demand, supply and incentives are highly perverse and will continue to deliver below expectations;
- Its cheerful willingness to increase the scope and size of the welfare state to incorporate middle class families, to put them in a cycle of dependency of government for a portion of their income, rather than deliver tax cuts;
- Labour’s almost religious willingness to sign up New Zealand to an Emissions Trading System and commitments to address CO2 emissions without there being any substantive evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs;
- The ongoing willingness to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money bailing out businesses that are failing in part because of its own unwillingness to accept foreign investment (Air NZ), or because of a quasi-religious obsession with a particular industry (Kiwirail);
- A similar willingness to decimate the private property rights of a major company (Telecom) whilst complaining about that company’s level of investment in new infrastructure;
- Cheeringly developing endless visions, strategies and statements about various sectors of business and communities, as if nothing should be left to people’s own choice, spontaneous decisions and dynamism. Labour does not perceive that it doesn’t have a role in just about everything – whether it be aging, what you eat, what you watch on TV, how you travel, what entertainment you consume, how to dispose of waste.
Is that enough?
You can be successful and quite wealthy under Labour, but you should be fitting in with its “visions” and “strategies” and you better be giving a lot back, because you owe it. Labour has an underlying suspicion of those “too” financially successful, as if they got there off the back of the workers, whereas it has a generous view of those who have failed. Labour sees those closer to the bottom as always deserving of more money, more assistance and that their circumstances are “no fault of their own”. It is the leftover legacy of socialism. The belief that, deep down, people shouldn’t be allowed to fail, and the successful shouldn’t be allowed to “get away with it”. Most of all it is the belief that the state is a force of good and it can intervene and do more good, most of the time.
I see the state as necessary to protect rights, not to grant privileges and take money from some and give to others (redistribution). I find the notion that the successful owe everyone else to be rather vile, but most of all I find the culture that says that everyone else owes you something, and you owe everyone else something to be most insidious.
Now the reasons to remove Labour from power are quite overwhelming. For me it is:
- The arrogant belief of the Labour Party that it knows best how to spend a significant proportion of people’s money, and its lack of accountability for wasting it. Taxpayers’ money is the government’s money and there is little appreciation of where it came from;
- The chilling view of Helen Clark that “the state is sovereign” showing scant regard for individual freedom;
- The culture of envy and sneering hatred for “the rich” and successful, particularly in business, that comes through in the general Labour attitude to “rich pricks” and the like;
- The almost complete lack of business experience or economic expertise in the Labour caucus, which is dominated by ex. teachers, union officials and public servants. That ISN’T representative of New Zealand (despite what Idiot Savant thinks);
- The sclerotic paucity of accountability and consumer driven reform of the education system under Labour, which is designed to serve what bureaucrats and the teaching unions think it best for education, not parents. Perhaps the greatest scope to open up innovation and cultural change in New Zealand would be in opening up education to be driven by users and providers in a virtuous circle seeking better performance from children;
- The insidious willingness of Labour to consider blunt Orwellian processes to monitor the lives of all children, regardless of their parents’ performance, as a response to the chronic child neglect and abuse by an underclass of barely functional adults;
- The lack of regard for private property rights whether it be homeowners on the one hand or large businesses on the other, or indeed the lack of willingness to use private property rights to deal with issues such as the foreshore and seabed;
- Complete emptiness of courage and ideas to manage the unmanageable burden of the public health system whereby demand, supply and incentives are highly perverse and will continue to deliver below expectations;
- Its cheerful willingness to increase the scope and size of the welfare state to incorporate middle class families, to put them in a cycle of dependency of government for a portion of their income, rather than deliver tax cuts;
- Labour’s almost religious willingness to sign up New Zealand to an Emissions Trading System and commitments to address CO2 emissions without there being any substantive evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs;
- The ongoing willingness to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money bailing out businesses that are failing in part because of its own unwillingness to accept foreign investment (Air NZ), or because of a quasi-religious obsession with a particular industry (Kiwirail);
- A similar willingness to decimate the private property rights of a major company (Telecom) whilst complaining about that company’s level of investment in new infrastructure;
- Cheeringly developing endless visions, strategies and statements about various sectors of business and communities, as if nothing should be left to people’s own choice, spontaneous decisions and dynamism. Labour does not perceive that it doesn’t have a role in just about everything – whether it be aging, what you eat, what you watch on TV, how you travel, what entertainment you consume, how to dispose of waste.
Is that enough?
02 September 2008
TelstraClear damns National's Think Big on telecoms
"political opportunism and a lot of hype",
"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"
"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."
Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.
He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.
I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?
I called it Think Big.
It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.
Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?
"What we are seeing is a series of questionable studies and hype"
"At the moment we don't believe that putting fibre into every home is economic or necessary."
Word from the Telstra Clear Chief Executive Alan Freeth, according to the NZ Herald, and given Telstra Clear actually put a hybrid fibre-coax network to the kerb of nearly every home in Wellington, Christchurch, the Hutt Valley and Kapiti Coast, he might know a bit more than your average politician. You see his business is about selling broadband to customers, and he thinks National has got it badly wrong.
He suggests that many homes will just download more movies and porn, rather than become "more productive". Of course, the simple point is that subsidising very fast broadband is subsidising a lot of entertainment. Something the advocates ignore.
I asked where is the demand in April. Why can't those who want broadband pay for it? As Freeth is quoted saying, what good is fibre to every home in Hokitika? Indeed, why should a business that benefits enormously from high speed broadband be subsidised by one that isn't, or a pensioner, or anyone else?
I called it Think Big.
It is headline grabbing, it ignores the risks that government "investment" brings, it ignores the ethical and economic problems of forcing people to pay for something they otherwise wouldn't pay for, and may not even benefit from. It is taking money from people who may otherwise invest it in businesses or their families for what they see as greater benefit.
Labour isn't much better though, but isn't it about time that all of you who don't want to be forced to pay for this stood up and said no? Or are there far more of you who can't wait for everyone else to subsidise your movie, music and porn downloads? Or you are all running enterprising net based businesses that need subsidies right?
01 September 2008
McCain panders to the religious right
Yes well picking Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin may be wise, on the surface, by putting a woman as the vice presidential running mate. Not the first time of course, as Geraldine Ferraro had her own shrill leftwing tilt at it in 1984, with Walter Mondale - a ticket doomed to fail against Ronald Reagan.
However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.
The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.
However she IS a Christian Conservative. A wise move again for a Republican who many on the religious right see as not being one of their own, but it isn't a wise move for freedom.
The Republican Party is a broad church of social conservatives and small government liberals. McCain has a bit of both, but he is no Bush - he isn't from the religious right. However his platform sounds an awful lot like he is. Now the Vice President isn't important, at all. Let's face it, who was voting for Bush when they voted for Reagan, who was voting for Quayle when they were voting for Bush, who was voting for Gore when they were voting for Clinton. It is really a stand in position, and little more.
So it is time to shine a light upon John McCain's policies. Obama is an unabashed big government statist, who (until recently) would rather Iraq fall to Islamists than let the US support the democratically elected government that is now in power there. He's not fit to be President, but is McCain?
ETS benefits?
Go on, give me one.
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
I don't mean "makes environmentalists feel good". I want something quantified, preferably one that will offset the increased costs to consumers and producers.
Bjorn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has as its primary thesis that even if anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, it may be more beneficial to humanity to NOT intervene to change this, but to rather target other issues, such as trade, clean water supplies, sanitation and inoculations in developing countries.
In other words, when you take a cold economic appraisal of the problem, it may not be worth addressing it. Certainly, New Zealand going alone whilst the likes of China, Russia, India and the entire Middle East do nothing is madness.
Yet it is mainstream politics to go along with it. What is the imperative for New Zealand to lead on this? What are the costs? More importantly, why do almost all political parties in Parliament sign up to it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)