Greens are right!

Yes, Frogblog has made a post I basically can't disagree with.

"Giving your party vote to a specific party increases that party’s proportion of seats in parliament and thereby diminishes every other party’s proportion. Vote for what you believe in. It’s that simple.

In the end we should stop trying to play the FPP game where the big parties pretend each of the small parties is actually just a faction of them. Assess each party on its policies and past history and vote accordingly. If you’re looking for a moderate centre-left party with a dash of ‘cling to power at all costs’ realism, vote Labour. If you’re looking for a ‘don’t worry there’s no secret agenda, we’ll keep things the same but say we’re offering fresh change’ party vote National. Otherwise look around. If you get Act or New Zealand First in government and didn’t want them, blame the people who voted for them, not the people who voted for something different."

Now it IS likely that if Labour got into power it would be because some people voted NZ First and Labour did a deal with NZ First. That's a reason to blame Labour for wanting to do such a deal, and of course the retards who vote NZ First for creating the opportunity.

I'd extend it further. Voting for any party does not put another party in power. No party "owns" your vote or is entitled to it. It is as that old leftie Ralph Nader said in response to Democrats who thought he "stole" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore and gave it to George W Bush - He essentially said 'you don't own my vote, you're not entitled to it. I choose who I vote for, it doesn't mean I endorse any other and doesn't mean I "took" it from you. It wasn't yours".

Just because I am highly likely to vote Libertarianz doesn't mean I've stolen my vote from ACT, let alone National. It's my vote, and if other parties haven't attracted it, then that it their problem.

Buyer's market

Go on, when stocks plummet along with property prices, there is opportunity. Want to buy a home? Want to buy some shares in major utilities? There are winners and losers when there is a major economic upheaval, don't ignore the opportunities to be a winner. The simple reason is that it may as well be you - because there are plenty just waiting to bargain hunt.

Oral sex speculation

What do you do when you want to make up a story - find a paper at a Sexual Health Congress (obvious joke for the more well read in that phrase) about oral sex.

However, it has never been "the exclusive domain of sex workers".

Most survey results are rather what people are willing to say rather than what happens, and moreso who knows what happened in the past?

It has never been illegal in New Zealand between women and between women and men. It is naturally a matter of personal choice and taste, very intimate, with one less obvious danger for women.

Thankfully politics can stay well out of it, but it is remarkable how it has become de riguer culturally. I can only hope that it is indulged in out of desire and passion rather than a sense of "I'm expected to do this".

Cullen plays hypocrite

Now I'm not warm towards John Key politically, but he is a smart guy, and he has had a real job. One thing that can't be said of him is that he is a failure - he doesn't need to be in politics, which naturally makes one wonder why he is, but that is besides the point.

According to the NZ Herald, Dr Cullen has claimed that Key is a "gambling currency trader" and that's the last sort of person that New Zealanders should want running the economy. Hilarious really, when Dr Cullen gambled taxpayers' money (money they didn't choose for him to gamble with) in many ways, such as:
- Buying the Auckland rail network for $81 million when Treasury valued it at $20 million tops, and before the whole network was bought back for $1;
- Buying the whole rail network for $1 after promising an Australian owned company monopoly rights to run across it, and to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade it, and then not enforcing the price it agreed with the company for it to pay to use the network;
- Buying Toll Rail well above the price that any commercial operator would have paid to buy it;
- Buying Air NZ after letting it nearly go into liquidation, instead of allowing Singapore Airlines to provide a 25% capital injection.

John Key in his previous career made business decisions for people who chose him to make judgements about their money. I'd trust John Key on macro-economic decisions anyday beyond the history lecturer, who has NEVER been trusted to manage the money of thousands of people before, and certainly never been accountable for failing to do so wisely.

Who would you rather have as your banker? John Key or Michael Cullen? To conclude, if currency trading is seen as "gambling" (which is an exercise that by and large is about taking a chance on blind odds in most cases), then what is using money taken from other people to buy businesses and assets at many times the price they were valued add commercially?

Cullen struggles to justify rail purchase

Dr Cullen, according to a government press release (not election campaigning of course!), says that the purchase of Toll Rail was essential because "With rising fuel prices and growing awareness of the threat of climate change, the restoration of New Zealand’s rail system is now an economic necessity".

Yet rail customers weren't willing to buy it, which makes it rather a curious claim. Economic necessity? Hardly.

Furthermore, he bizarrely thinks that because Toll said the railway business was worth a lot of money, it must have been!:

“Toll believed, however, it was worth over $1 billion. As the government had to take national interest factors into account and as the existing owners of the track itself, we were always going to have to pay more than commercial rail operators who did not have an interest in keeping services open. In the end roughly half of the price the Crown paid was to buy Toll out of its long term monopoly right."

Well I can say my car is worth $100,000, but it doesn't mean it is - it means if you believe it, I'm ripping you off. If Toll believed that, why didn't it sell Toll Rail to someone who would pay it? Why sell to the government? It was a bluff, a standard commercial negotiating technique, which Dr Cullen is either too stupid to see, or was being willfully blind because he wanted to buy it, at any price (and could threaten to force a sale).

He admits he was willing to pay more than a commercial operator because he wants to keep services open that effectively can only be kept open at a loss.

The waffle ends with:

"Having KiwiRail in Kiwi hands will allow us to protect rail services for provincial economies, move more freight off roads and onto tracks, and help make our economy a truly sustainable one"

Protect them? So provincial economics need rail to move logs, milk, coal and containers, at a loss? So the loss of revenue from less road user charges will be saved in maintenance costs? Was the economy truly sustainable when it was illegal to ship freight more than 150km by road?

KiwiRail is going to be a huge success for our economy. Really? So after paying over a billion dollars to buy it back and upgrade the lines and trains, will it return dividends that will pay that back and some? No, of course not. It's smoke and mirrors, it is faith not facts, it is worshipping the same altar of religion of rail that the Greens bow down at.

It's bad economics and complete nonsense. Toll took Dr Cullen, the Labour/NZ First/United Future/Jim Anderton government to the cleaners, and flogged off an unprofitable business for a fortune. Now Dr Cullen is spouting out rubbish about the gains this "investment" will bring.

My challenge is simple to the government- produce an independent economic appraisal of the net economic return from the renationalisation of Toll Rail. I dare you.