Honour among thieves?

Thieves being Labour and NZ First politicians of course (not that they have a monopoly on this).

Owen Glenn's evidence is damning.

How utterly determined are these suckers from people's bank accounts to remain in power? How little self esteem do they have when they don't have power? What better reason is there to throw them in the dustbin of history?

Why do the good people of Mt Albert think that woman is worthy of representing them?

NZ First and Labour have acted inappropriately, in ways that would have outraged either party had National done the same.

Not PC has it part right. Clark will need to call an election anyway. However, serious questions need to be answered. Winston's credibility now resides only in his geriatric personality cult, and this should ensure his political oblivion. Mike Williams must go to save what's left of the Labour Party's honour, he is the sacrificial lamb Clark must demand. She must apologise, call the election and answer the questions as to why the Labour Party has retained power through sheer hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, maybe Nicky Hagar will write a book about it? Oh no, wouldn't be convenient now would it?

Environmentalists impoverishing Africa

Mark Henderson in The Times writes about how Africa is being kept poor by environmental activists from wealthy countries promoting traditional agriculture rather than the latest technology in agriculture. Sir David King, the former scientific advisor to the UK government, says of Africa:

Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance.

Of course anti-reason is the hallmark of the Greens - a philosophy of hysteria scaremongering, that is a quasi-religious worshipping of the "natural and traditional" against the scientific and technologically advanced.

He calls organic food "a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food", not to say it is wrong for people to choose it, but that it has driven messages to those communities without surplus food, who simply can't afford to ignore the latest that agricultural science has to offer.

He talks of how hundreds of individual farmers taking produce to market is an inefficient activity from the past, because after all most food in developed countries is not sold by those producing it, because if they spent their effort doing that they would sell a fraction of what they do otherwise.

It's time to engage in the philosophical debate at question here. Should public policy be driven by well intentioned zealots who don't let evidence, science and results get in the way of their ideology, or should it be based on rational analysis of options? Should we continue to listen to the GE scaremongerers, the organic food advocates and those who spread scepticism about science, when they offer no solid evidence for their faith like beliefs?

When Professor King cites the example that "Friends of the Earth in 1999 worried that drought-tolerant crops may have the potential to grow in habitats unavailable' to conventional crops" then you know Friends of the Earth have become enemies of humanity.

It's about time the benign contradiction infested, irrational, quasi religious and pro-state violence philosophy of the Greens was challenged openly - it disgustingly taints the policies of most other political parties, and the mainstream media has neglected to confront what it is really about.

ACT voted with Labour?

Well so says Brian Rudman. Apparently ACT voted for the Public Transport Management Bill, which Rudman thoroughly approves - instantly sending alarm bells off in my head. ACT with Labour and the Greens?

What IS that Bill about? Well it is quite simple. The Auckland Regional Council has long been upset that so many of Auckland's bus services were commercially provided by the private sector. In others words, people paid fares, companies ran buses and they were all happy - except the ARC of course, which has long wanted to regulate fares, frequencies and plan Auckland public transport endlessly (and shut down commercial bus services competing with its own highly loss making rail services).

The ARC has long missed owning and operating Auckland's buses, ignoring that it did such an abysmal job at it. When the ARC and its ARA predecessor ran most of the buses in Auckland, patronage had its longest continuous decline in patronage from the late 1960s through to the late 1990s. At the same time, the bus fleet progressively aged, services were planned endlessly and Aucklanders continued to drive, and subsidies increased. After forced privatisation (which by the way helped create the assets of what is now Auckland Regional Holdings (formerly Infrastructure Auckland)), Stagecoach Auckland invested heavily in new buses and commercial services thrived, and patronage grew.

However it wasn't trains.

You see the bus companies would sometimes drop routes and frequencies of services operating commercially, upsetting the ARC which believed it needed to subsidise services to plug such gaps. This happened more frequently after millions of dollars were poured into rail services, as subsidised trains undermined unsubsidised bus services.

The ARC is not forced to subsidise any bus services. When it chooses to do so it is required to competitively tender them, so like any business seeking a contractor, it faces choices. It can also set terms and conditions for those tendering. Rudman's claim that "As the law stands, despite these huge subsidies, ARTA cannot inspect operators' books to check whether they are gouging the system" is only true if you think ARTA's contracting processes are robust and it seeks the best value for money.

ARTA could deny increases in subsidies, but it wants to deny increases in fares and to increase services beyond those commercially sustainable. Reality is that fuel prices put up the price of providing services, subsidising rail services undermines the fare revenue of certain bus services, so subsidies rise if fares don't rise.

This bill aims to dodge reality. It means that commercially provided services can now be more heavily regulated - services that get no subsidies may be forced to integrate with a ticketing system specified by ARTA, and which may not deliver any benefits to the companies, because it wont attract enough passengers to pay for the cost of the system. It means that regional councils can contract over commercial services, so that instead of a mix of subsidised and unsubsidised services by different companies, you get subsidised services by a single one.

Rodney Hide has made a mistake. He has voted for local government control over private enterprise and central planning of public transport over entrepreneurship, and incentives to minimise subsidies. National voted against it, it would be nice if it promised to repeal this legislation which would only increase what ratepayers pay to subsidise public transport.

Don't like Auckland's trains? Pay more!

Well it's hardly surprising. You get what you pay for.

You see the fares only recover around a third of the operating costs, and not a dollar of fare revenue has been used to pay for the trains themselves, the track upgrades or the station upgrades. They have been paid for by ratepayers, motorists (through petrol tax) and the proceeds of the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company.

So when Peter Lyons in the NZ Herald moans about services being late, moans about standing room only, moans about the services being inferior to his expectations he shouldn't be surprised. Taxpayers have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the system. He starves the system by paying fares that are a fraction of the operating costs, it's a con that deludes Aucklanders into thinking that you can have a first class urban passenger railway without either paying fares to sustain it (as in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan) or paying a fortune in rates or taxes (as in Paris, Vienna, Montreal).

So the debate is really this. Are those who want Auckland to have a passenger railway willing to use it and pay the fares necessary to sustain it? If not, why should Aucklanders who don't want to use it be forced to pay taxes for those who do?

Meanwhile, if you think it is the solution to congestion in Auckland, consider that 88% of commuters in Auckland do NOT work in downtown Auckland, where the railway goes. Consider that the railway itself only serves three out of the five main corridors in Auckland radiating from the central city, then you can see that at best 7% of Auckland commuters might use it.

It would be nice if a journalist would put in a LGOIMA (official information) request to the ARC to ask the difference its rail plan would make to traffic speeds in Auckland if fully implemented (according to peer reviewed consultants' reports).

World's biggest nationalisation?

According to the Times, The Bush Administration has injected US$200 Billion of US taxpayers' money into the Federal National Mortgage Administration (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), at the same time as it has taken over the companies, replaced the chief executives and suspended dividends to the private shareholders.

Both companies finance more than 80% of the US housing market, what this means is a massive subsidy for US homeowners. Future taxpayers (as the US is in budget deficit) will pay to prop up the property market now.

Reuters reports Barack Obama supports it as being necessary, but welcomingly said "In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a "heads they win, tails they don't lose" situation." Which of course, is what has happened.

It also reports John McCain also supports it, but also this:

""The long-term reforms are to scale down Fannie and Freddie so their size is no longer a threat. And then privatize them. Get them off the taxpayer's books entirely," said McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.".

Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan criticises the bailout saying the companies should have been nationalised, given the shareholders nothing and privatised the two companies into many smaller firms.

These two firms were government creations, as part of the New Deal. It's about time the US economy was no longer dependent on them both. As Not PC said, they should have been allowed to fail. Bailing them out is taking money from those who didn't take those risks, it delays and reduces future tax cuts. The money for the bailout does not come from trees, it comes from people.

As Paul Gigot in the Wall Street Journal writes:

"Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine "change," not that either presidential candidate seems interested."

As it is a fait accompli, the best that can hoped for is to take Greenspan's solution, fully nationalise the institutions, split them and sell them. Ensure these creations of government are returned to the dustbin of history.