A lousy tax cut idea

Idiot Savant at No Right Turn talks of speculation in the Sunday Star Times that Cullen's tax cut might be a "social dividend" flat payout of $1000 per "low income earner" (otherwise known as the Labour core).

He describes this as "a good idea, and certainly far better than anything offered by the "tax cuts for the rich" brigade. It targets support at the needy rather than the greedy,"

Now I'm not one to look a tax cut in the mouth, but he's seriously wrong. He isn't advocating a tax cut after all. A tax cut, you see, means your net income increases as the government takes less of what you earn. You get a steady amount each fortnight or month, can afford to save it, spend it, or do as you wish. It is permanent, sustainable and reduces the size of the state (which I acknowledge isn't important to him, as he sees it as the best way to deliver health, education and social insurance monopolies).

What will happen if people on low incomes get $1000 one off? Well, there will be a lot more big TVs being sold, some fashion trips, a few more new car stereos, some trips to Australia and the rest. In other words, it will be used to buy consumer goods. Now that, in itself, isn't a bad thing, except that this dividend wouldn't be paid to everyone, especially the majority who pay 90% of income tax. Don't forget those on the top tax rates pay the vast majority of income tax, but to argue they don't deserve a dividend is grossly unfair.
.
No, Idiot Savant wants you to keep working 2 days a week for the beloved Nanny State and be grateful that with every extra dollar you earn, you only get to keep 61c of it, even before you give up a 12.5% surcharge of what you buy to the state, be damned grateful we let you keep that you rich thieving bastard (the undertone being "you don't fucking deserve what you earn, just wish the revolution would come one day and you'll get yours you bourgeoisie scum").
.
Far more generous is the Libertarianz policy announced in the weekend of immediately creating a tax free threshold of $10,000 for everyone, which would mean those lowest earners (and students, children and others earning a bit here and there) would be free of income tax, but would also be a boost to all other income earners.

You see cutting taxes does not "disproportionately" benefit the rich, given it was their money in the first place. That is the fundamental difference between statists and libertarians. Statists think taxes are "society's money" or "government money" and getting a tax cut is "taking it from society". Libertarians believe it is your money that the government has taken, and a tax cut is giving you back your own money. No pure tax cut can be disproportionate by definition.

Of course he goes on to advocate a universal basic income, a concept some libertarians advocate as a transitional step to replacing the welfare state, using Milton Friedman's negative income tax concept with a flat tax. That idea, as a transitional measure, has some merit for debate. However he sees it as basically freeing people from work "It would substantially improve the actual, substantive freedom of people to lead their lives how they wish". Well for people who want to not work. You know those useful productive dynamic people who want to live off of the back of everyone else until they decide not to, while we all pay for them. Of course it would reduce the freedom of people for the rest of us having to pay for everyone else.

So there you have it - the left want people to get an income for doing absolutely nothing - their birthright to have everyone else pay for them to live, and not just survive but to be not uncomfortable. They want everyone else to pay for it, because - well they believe once you get above average you owe it to pay for those below - and not only that, if you ask for a tax cut when you are "rich" (above average income) you're selfish and evil.

It's quite despicable.

Cruel and deliberate?

Sue Bradford, champion of those who live off of the money of others taken by force. She thinks welfare benefits should be enough to have a satisfactory lifestyle, not a last choice to cover bare necessities whilst people seeks to become independent. According to the NZ Herald she claims beneficiaries face "deepening poverty" when in fact they just don't keep up with the incomes of those who work - funny that - shouldn't welfare be enough for subsistence?

No, Bradford and the Greens think if the economy grows then so should welfare. It shouldn't just be about keeping someone fed, clothed, housed and heated, but maintaining a certain RELATIVE standard of living compared to everyone else, even though it hasn't been earned. That's the difference. The Greens are Marxists who see the welfare state as a means of taking from the rich and middle class and giving to the poor, and so they would cheer on a doubling of benefits.

However they fail to even acknowledge the absolute destitution of ambition, effort or motivation of many on welfare. Take some examples listed by bloggers:

No Minister's tale from Murupara;
No Minister's tale from Mangere Bridge;
Oswald Bastable's example of Brits on welfare.

Sue, people who work hard and save are sick of paying for those who treat welfare as a choice, who proudly do nothing. Welfarism has failed, miserably. A radical change is needed, for starters it needs to be time limited and those on welfare should receive no more for having more children.

Ultimately the whole damned thing needs to be abolished, and by the way Sue, then you and all those who care so much can do more by yourself, put your own money where your mouth is. You could do far worse than to listen to Lindsay Mitchell who knows this area only too well.

Some more questions for Dr Cullen on rail

And by the way, John Key and Maurice Williamson will need to answer them too, after all if you're not going to sell it....


Who will be responsible for allocating subsidies to the "new" NZR, will it be the soon to be created New Zealand Transport Agency which will also be responsible for the state highway network (so has a conflict of interest), or the Ministry of Transport, which doesn't have a significant capability in making funding decisions?

Will the 60 year + old rolling stock for the TranzCoastal, Overlander and TranzAlpine be replaced? When? For how much and will it be subsidised?

What is the strategy for the following lines that are not used? (Taneatua, Whakatane, Rotorua, Rapahoe, Castlecliff)

What is the strategy for replacing the vast majority of the diesel locomotive fleet which has engines built in the 1970s?

Will you be owning the new trains being bought for Wellington that are partly local authority funded, or will GWRC still own them?

Will you operate a transparent accounting structure that separates overheads, fixed and variable costs for each line, so that it becomes clear what routes you subsidise and by how much?

Will you subsidise trains by paying for services to be operated or just for rolling stock and locomotive, regardless of how well used they are?

How will you ensure neutral treatment of the coastal shipping industry now you will be a major player (and competitor) with the ferries?

Will you let the "new" NZR get into road freight or not?

Will you let other companies buy their own locomotives and rolling stock to operate trains or have any restrictions other than safety, or any capacity limits? In other words, will you operate an open access railway?

Will you be building any new lines and if so, why, what are the net benefits?

What policy will you have about closing lines and stations, or are they all to remain perpetually open?

How much taxpayers' money are you budgeting for rail infrastructure, rail services and rail rolling stock, beyond what is funded from the National Land Transport Fund through Land Transport NZ?

Will the railways be transferred to NZRC and will it still be expected to make a profit (as it did when it originally ran the lot from 1982 to 1990)?

How will you ensure the subsidised railway system wont cross subsidise the rail ferries?

Will you subsidise any passenger services besides commuter services in Auckland and Wellington?

Aussies about to fritter away their surplus

It is Australia's Budget Day. The booming Australian mining sector has seen a massive tax windfall for the Australian Federal Government, with one economist suggesting A$20 billion should be put away and invested, much like Norway and other governments do, to fund future liabilities and to cover federal spending for a "rainy day". However no, the Rudd government (and it's not much worse than Howard) will spend it like the proverbial drunken sailor, although it will also give tax cuts. The result is further bloating of the Australian Federal Government, further dependency on middle class and corporate welfare, and simply sheer waste, when Australians could be enjoying low flat federal taxes and a diversifying economy, rather than one that milks commodities and keeps the rest of the economy propped up on transfers.

.

However, whilst the best time to squeeze efficiency out of the public sector would be now, the incentives to do so are the poorest. Why do politicians love spending other people's money so much, and why do people let them do it?

Boris after 1 week?

Well so far he has:

.

- Banned consumption of alcohol on the tube, DLR and franchised London bus routes (frankly I'd have left this to the operators, but it is neither here not there);

- Appointed a Forensic Audit Panel to investigate financial management at the GLA, with an interim report on how to make savings within 30 days, with a full report within 3 months of areas of spending cuts;

- Withdrawn an appeal by the Mayor to the High Court against Thames Water developing a desalinisation plant powered by renewable energy (to provide auxiliary water supply for London). Ken Livingstone opposed it because he saw the plant as a "waste of energy";

- The Mayor's newspaper/propaganda sheet "The Londoner" is to close, saving £3m p.a..

.
So within a month there may be more savings, and after 3 months hopefully a plan for more. However I'd like to see a few more zeros behind the savings than just 6.

Nepal no surprise

Idiot Savant is surprised that the Maoist Nepalese government is arresting Tibetan protestors according to the BBC.

.

Tibet, where freedom of speech has been consistently suppressed by, um, the original Maoist government and its successors (although the Nepalese Maoists condemn the current Chinese regime and vice versa). How foolish does someone on the left have to be to believe Maoists are any better defenders of freedom than Nazis? China, North Korea, Cambodia are all great examples!

..

These thugs waged a civil war in the countryside, engaged in intimidation against free speech and democracy in areas its paramilitaries controlled. Abolishing the monarchy may only be the start of a far bloodier future for Nepalis. However, they were elected so I guess it will be "ok" to the worshippers of democracy, the world seems to turn its back on people who vote for those who don't believe in democracy.

Thankless job of being a third party candidate

The Mail on Sunday describes in detail life on the hustings for Brian Paddick, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the London Mayoralty (who came a distant third with 9.6% of first preferences), he wont be standing again thanks to poor support from his party and the hard work (and lacklustre response, even from members). By the way, Brian is gay and an ex. police officer and while his policies were largely mad, seemed a decent enough chap.

.

Some highlights:

.

"Meet the candidate event" in a Covent Garden bar. Not many people want to meet the candidate. A strikingly handsome man engages me in conversation. Later find out he is an ex-porn star. Thank God the Press photographer had gone. "

.

"5th It's Jewish day – so to the London Jewish Forum breakfast near Oxford Circus. Go to a cafe next door where Gary Lineker walks in, sits down and orders a fry-up. He sits with his legs wide apart and picks his nose – all previous illusions shattered. "

.

and

.

"14th Launch our transport policies at Vauxhall Bus Station – no one comes."

.

Prospective politicians should take heed, particularly anyone from a party that isn't one of the top two contenders in most seats. There are far better things to do with your time in most instances than stand for public office.

.

Hat tip: Iain Dale's diary

Man evicted from house he doesn't own

The Dominion Post reports how a man, who appealed to the District Court (after going to the Tenancy Tribunal) is to be evicted from the four bedroom house YOU own that he occupies. He claimed he should keep living there because it was in his mother's name (she died), and presumably was the family home (yes see how welfarism lifts people out of poverty and dependency?) - but, quite rightly so, the idea that you can inherit a home you don't own is absurd.

.

Jason Ellis - if you want to stay forever in a house, buy one. Yes I know it's hard, but imagine how much more you could have earned had you worked on getting a deposit together rather than appealing for taxpayers to keep you living off of them.

Thank you NZ Herald

For making me blog of the week in the Herald on Sunday. I only found out indirectly from two sources, but it is nice to know someone is reading.

.

The mention in the article about Judith Tizard amuses me though. Apparently I am a conservative man, and Judith said "They don't like me because I win. The greatest affront, particularly to conservative blokes, is successful women who they don't agree with". Well Judith I am far from conservative and while i don't agree with you, I am glad you think you are successful. I am fairly certain you are not exactly happy about being excluded from Cabinet.

.

Look, you helped stop the ALPURT B2 road project when Labour got elected so that the Grafton Gully motorway project could proceed as a priority instead (which worked), but given the PM was cheerleading roads in Auckland heavily from 2002 you really were not that influential especially after Mark Gosche was sidelined for Paul Swain in the transport portfolio (given he is a go getter and Gosche wasn't really up to it).

.

Road spending in Auckland was hardly because of you (though you supported and chipped in with those pushing for it), it was a government recognition of the problem of congestion in Auckland (which to be fair had been inadequate under the Nats) and the votes to be gained in building roads there. You were never Transport Minister, you don't decide what Transit promotes or Land Transport NZ (and Transfund before it) funded, given the Minister appointed Board Members that were keen to address Auckland. You did have a role with the Northern Busway, if only because there were umpteen government entities involved in getting it moving, but that was a governance problem that did require heads being banged together - and it remains underutilised. On the positive side, you can be a very fun person.

.
Anyway, Auckland Central voters appear to have a choice this year to replace you with a successful hard working physically agile (and attractive) young woman who is standing for the Nats. Given that the National caucus does need to be uplifted somewhat (Jacqui Dean??), I hope Nikki Kaye wins resoundingly.

Censors allow suicide but not those obscene boobs

It is positive that, according to the Dominion Post, the Chief Censor has allowed the New Zealand distribution of the book by Philip Nitschke's The Peaceful Pill Handbook - which is about voluntary euthanasia. It is rated R18. Jim Anderton, who to be fair has close personal experience of the tragedy of suicide, is concerned it will encourage young people to be suicidal. However according to Chief Censor Bill Hastings the law limits what can be done:

"when grading material that depicts or expresses suicide, or any activity which could cause harm if imitated, censors could only restrict material. They could not ban it."

The book is aimed at the elderly or those with terminal illnesses, it is only fair and right that this well intentioned publication be allowed to circulate. Let's not forget that one of the most widely circulated books in society has as its central theme human sacrifice.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports the Australian Classification Board is concerned about magazine Rushh Australia which apparently has topless photos of a 16yo New Zealand girl called Zippora Seven (above) (if you dare you can see one of the topless shots here and it is hardly pornographic) in the magazine.

.

Although the girl could legally go to any private premises she likes and bare her boobs for the hell of it (and can consent to letting people do as they wish with them), apparently she is a "minor" for censorship purposes as nudity of anyone under 18 is banned. The legal status of the magazine will be interesting, if it is deemed objectionable then it would be a serious criminal charge for the magazine, and everyone who sold it and everyone who bought it as producing, distributing and possessing an objectionable publication is a strict liability offence. You don't need to know whether an image is objectionable to be convicted of possessing it.

.

It's always been a curiosity of Angl0-Saxon culture that womens' breasts are obscene. This restriction is no doubt caught up in concern about child pornography, of which the real stuff is so far removed from this case to indicate that the law has been drafted to apply the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Of course, anyone arguing any different would be deemed a "pervert" because "who wants to see a 16yo girl's breasts". I'd argue that those getting so worked up about the exposure of a young woman of legal age perhaps need to look in the mirror, and perhaps ought to consider that there are probably more young women doing this online by choice with webcams (and umpteen websites dedicated to this) than ever any legitimate magazines. Remember if this law is meant to protect them, then you'd wonder why it is ok to let men of any age fondle any willing 16yo girl's breasts, but not ok to buy a magazine that depicts them. Oh and if you're concerned about the sexualisation of young girls (nobody is ever too fussed about boys which is an issue in itself), then looking at 16 year olds is not the place to start, you might look at Bratz dolls instead for those half that age!

Gordon Brown fights to keep the Union

Well although he denied Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander called for an early referendum on Scottish independence (even though she did), the Daily Telegraph is reporting Gordon as saying "I want all Unionist parties and all parts of business – employers, managers and trade unions – to work together not only to push the case for the Union but to expose the dangers of ­separation"

.

Of course the primary danger for Gordon is that he can hardly be Prime Minister of the UK if he is an MP of a different country - which he would be! The second danger is that losing Scotland would make the race for the House of Commons far closer for the Conservatives. 646 seats drops to 587 once the Scottish seats are removed. Labour would then have 315 seats out of 587 (rather than 356 in 646), Conservatives 197 (rather than 198), Liberal Democrats 51 (rather than 62). A slender 22 seat majority, but still 118 over the Tories.

.

While I think it would be sad for the Union to split, if Scotland wants independence then so be it - especially since it takes more than it pays in taxes from Westminster. If Scotland wants to be a quaint small economy pursuing a vestigial socialist experiment then fine, England will be better off without it. Sadly, a smaller UK will be less effective internationally, but Scotland will have to live without being a major power, and seeking subsidies from Brussels instead of London. Perhaps it would learn like Ireland how socialism fails and lay out the low tax welcome mat - so I remain ambivalent.

.

I wrote more strongly about it before, and believe the Conservatives should deal with the West Lothian question - quite simply Scottish MPs should have no right to vote on matters at the House of Commons that do not affect Scotland (i.e. everything devolved to the Scottish Executive).

.

So what should happen? Do Scots really want to be on their own separate from Westminster, or do they appreciate the United Kingdom? Finally, the elegant Union Jack design - what the hell happens to that if the St Andrew's Cross has to go?

The Waitangi gravy train - who will end it

No, it's not the vivid imagination of conservative punters. A former member of the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Michael Bassett, is hardly a paragon of conservatism, being a former Labour Cabinet Minister. He has written in his latest column about the taxpayer funded claims process:

.

"Both major political parties know that what is happening is wrong, and that ordinary Maori in whose name the claims are made, aren’t getting a cracker out of the money being spent on lawyers, researchers and Tribunal staff. The spinelessness that we have come to expect of politicians in an MMP environment assists the greedy, when it was the needy we set out to help in 1985."

.

Of course you've been paying for the "jobs" involved in this process, he continues:

.

"By the time I joined the Tribunal in 1994 hearings were awash with lawyers, most on Legal Aid, with the claims before us being funded by the CFRT or the Tribunal’s taxpayer funded resources. Virtually none of the costly process was paid for upfront by the claimants. They therefore had no incentive to be careful with taxpayers’ money, or even with the Maori money that many were eventually to receive from the CFRT. Rorting the Tribunal process has become the name of the game. A whole industry numbering somewhere around 1,000 people gathered around new grievances that keep being dreamt up.

.

When politicians settled on land grievances as the cause of Maori problems they made a mistake. It would have made better sense to examine welfare and the huge damage it has done to Maori society. The Waitangi Tribunal should be scaled down. The industry is of no use to 99% of the people it’s meant to serve. "

.

However, don't hold your breath. National of course nurtured this industry when it was in power, it will do nothing now as it anxiously seeks support from the flotsam and jetsam of anti-semitics and Mugabe appeasers in the Maori Party. The Waitangi Tribunal should be wound up, claims of state theft of land should be heard through the courts, for both Maori and non-Maori claimants. However, no doubt far too many who suckle from nanny state (i.e. you) will ensure the Maori Party holds us all to ransom for this industry - and of course call everyone who criticises this as racist.

Still going to vote National? I know Libertarianz would abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, but what will ACT push for? Wouldn't things be different if National had to rely on ACT and the Libertarianz to govern, rather than the racist party?

Labour, National and Jim Anderton - well done

Three words - TOLD YOU SO.

.

The Dominion Post reports:

.

"A dramatic increase in people being admitted to hospital with severe reactions to party pills has experts calling for urgent action... Dozens of new pills flooded the market last month, replacing BZP varieties whose sale was banned from April 1. "BZP really didn't make much of an impact in Wellington, but certainly over the past few weekends we've noticed a change," Dr Quigley said."

.

(Dr Quigley is a Wellington Hospital emergency doctor)

.

Banning BZP worked didn't it? You're all so clever aren't you? However with all three Labour parties (Anderton and Key lead the others) cheerleading prohibition, don't expect a backdown. No. Anderton is already calling for the burden of proof of safety to shift to manufacturers. Of course if it weren't for ACC, they could be sued for negligence, but none of the major parties are going to confront that little reason why New Zealand is a haven for trying out products are they?

You see unlike virtually every other country in the world, with the abolition of the right to sue for personal injury by accident, it makes New Zealand a soft touch for manufacturers. ACC socialises the negligence of others, and undermines an insurance market whereby manufacturers (and the public) would pay according to risk.

.

So banning something creates market demand for something else, which happens to be less safe, no doubt all those pills will be banned now, though it will take another couple of years. Meanwhile shifting the burden of proof to manufacturers will have implications for the vitamin and alternative remedies sector as well.

.

Clint Heine reminds us that Damien O'Connor predicted party pills would disappear, and most of you still trust 30-40% of your income with these people to buy you healthcare, pensions and your kids education?

What will get YOU angry about governments?

What is enough to piss you off at the utter ineptness of government? Look at Burma now and you can see hundreds of thousands facing death because of it.

.

Let's summarise what has happened. A devastating cyclone has already killed some 23,000 and rendered over a million homeless, what has been the primary reaction of governments?

.

- Burmese military dictatorship underplays the event, refuses to grant visas for international aid workers to enter en masse, asks for aid to be given to it to distribute;

- Burmese state monopoly TV portrays the army as the great giver of help and assistance to the people;

- Hundreds of thousands remain without aid, whilst aircraft from countries as diverse as the US and Qatar are refused entry, and Burmese embassies go on two public holidays so no visas get granted;

- The French Foreign Minister suggests a UN Security Council resolution forcing aid entry into Burma, the authoritarian kleptocracy of Russia and the authoritarian one party People's Republic of China reject it as an infringement on sovereignty;

- The Guardian reports the main news on Myanmar TV is promoting the referendum for a new constitution "State TV broadcast a video showing two women singing a pop-style song with the lyrics: "Let's go vote … with sincere thoughts for happy days"." Sickening.

.

That's right, governments are more precious about sovereignty than people dying. Of course you already knew that, history is filled with countless examples of governments murdering or engaging in culpable manslaughter of their citizens, but still many "respect" them.

.

Now, of course, the UK is being totally limpwristed about it, with the BBC reporting that UK International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander (another one of Gordon Brown's Scottish Labour mafia) saying flying aid into Burma without permission would be "incendiary".

.

Oh I am sorry, I didn't realise that the British government was so concerned about hurting the feelings of a barbaric military dictatorship rather than saving people who are being ignored by the regime.

.

So here is an idea. NATO convene and announces that it is sending in a mission to deliver aid to the ignored parts of Burma, it will provide armed cover and any Burmese military that threaten or get in their way will be dealth with. The USA is already there, France is keen, this was a former British colony, get some fucking balls and do something. People are dying and you're letting a pitiful little tinpot dictatorship decide the shots. Quite simply, ignore China and Russia, the former is trying to be helpful, but fundamentally is letting aid flow to the regime to distribute and the latter is just a criminal state run by bullies.

.

Meanwhile, if you need a reminder of what evil looks like, BBC TV has shown scenes of Burmese citizens being marched by soldiers to vote in the constitutional referendum which will secure the rule of these thugs. Yes, the army is bullying people suffering under the cyclone to vote.

Below is Aj Jazeera's coverage of what Myanmar TV is telling its population. Liars through and through. The West is somehow scared of pushing these bastards around. Still think governments are competent?

UPDATE: Oh and CNN now reports that the junta is using aid as an enticement to vote in its filthy referendum.

Labour erodes mobile phone operators' property rights

David Cunliffe has nationalised something else by stealth. It was coming, and has less publicity than local loop unbundling, but the government has announced the terms and conditions by which Vodafone and Telecom will be forced to onsell their network capacity to competitors. That means being required to offer the cellsites they developed themselves, and all of the equipment including the newer 3G networks.

.Let's remember how cellular networks developed. The first was Telecom's from 1987 which was a monopoly until the government sold off other spectrum, and BellSouth started replicating Telecom's network in 1993. Vodafone bought BellSouth and greatly expanded its coverage, built it all from scratch. Its coverage largely overlaps Telecom's. Meanwhile Telecom installed two digital networks and Vodafone retrofitted its current one.

.However Labour doesn't want a third company doing the same thing, it has decided to penalise those that HAVE built networks by making them resell them to those who wont. So there wont be any new networks (the new providers have to reach 5% of the population, which can be easily done with a handful of sites in Auckland) unless you are willing to share your investment with competitors.

.Nice one that, and will National reverse this?

Compulsory Maori music

Oh please, with millions being poured into commercially unsustainable Maori radio, it still isn't good enough for some Maori musicians. According to the NZ Herald:

.

"composer Tihi Puanaki, who is leading the campaign for more airtime, are calling for a compulsory te reo Maori quota. "Its invisibility creates a perception of this whole genre lacking in status. "There is fantastic work being produced by Maori musicians that is not receiving the support it should be." While she understood that commercial radio had an imperative to make money, there was still a "moral responsibility" to help to revitalise an official language which was still at risk. She said the campaign was not about "ramming" music down people's throats."

.

Actually it is - a quota means you are ramming down the throat of a radio station you don't own.

.

It's simple. You think the work is fantastic, it may be, it may not be. However if you can't convince people of its merits, you have no right to force it onto anyone.

.

I realise that the Maori, Green, Labour and NZ First Parties all don't understand that, but forcing radio stations to play what they don't think their listeners want to hear is immoral. After all, should Maori stations be forced to play music they don't want? Go on, promote your music, even set up your own radio station - but don't expect radio stations to be forced to play what they don't want to play, anymore than you should expect newspapers to publish what they don't want.

Murderous scum in Burma, whilst China appeases

Take a look at this, Myanmar State TV Channel 3's news reports:

"Chairman of the National Disaster Preparedness Central Committee Prime Minister General Thein Sein who is supervising relief tasks for storm victims in a speedy and effective way in Ayeyawady Division presented 20 sets of TV, 10 DVD players and 10 satellite receivers to Chairman of Ayeyawady Division Peace and Development Council Commander of South-West Command Brig-Gen Kyaw Swe for the storm victims at various camps enabling them to enjoy the programmes at Mya E-ya Hall of the South-West Command this morning"

Yes, it was a priority to get TVs to storm victims. The Burmese military thugocracy has demanded that all aid simply be dropped off at airports and it will then ensure that the party, military and their lackeys will get all they need before the aid is distributed to areas friendly to the regime.

.

Burma's bullies are being shown on national television (it is a crime for Burmese to attempt to access TV or radio broadcasts from foreign countries) handing out aid, because they want to be seen as the great benevolent force in the country. That's why they want YOUR aid, so they can sustain their blood stained regime. It said it would welcome cash and aid, of course. However, the BBC reports it has turned away flights from several countries, including Qatar (hardly a regime willing to spread democracy and fredom). Apparently offers of helicopters to aid distribution were refused, whereas Burma's own Soviet era military helicopters are limping with inadequate payload or range to be too effective.

.

Meanwhile, China abides by what Burma says - and gives it aid. Xinhua is not reporting the conditions Burma is imposing. Funny how China refuses to discuss the inadequacy of Burmese distribution efforts, or comment on the refusal to accept foreign search and rescue teams - because, of course, this tinpot dictatorship is so good at it. Yes, you now have another reason to protest against the Chinese Communist regime.

Stuff still thinks Nick Smith is the Minister

Still and here is the article here. Is someone trapped in the past or is it a grim forecast?

Boris cans taxpayer support for commie rag

Just in case you thought that Ken Livingstone was some bastion of moderation, Boris Johnson as London Mayor finds out what London council tax payers have been helping prop up...

.

From Iain Dale's blog:

.

"the GLA Building had a subscription of forty - yes, forty - copies of the Morning Star delivered every day. Boris's first action as Mayor was to cancel all forty subscriptions to the lefty rag"

.

Good job, that vile little commie rag should be a choice of people to pay out of their own pocket. The cancellation will hurt, Iain Dale says it will save £10,000 a year.

Gordon Ramsay - the fascist chef

Well after this BBC report where Gordon Ramsay said this:

"Celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay says British restaurants should be fined if they serve fruit and vegetables which are not in season. .. Mr Ramsay said he had already spoken to Prime Minister Gordon Brown about outlawing out-of-season produce"

.

There is only this to say...

.

Dear Gordon

Pardon the expletives but it is important you understand.

You’re a fucking good chef, of course you are, there are few bastards in the world half as good as you, so shit, you can talk with authority about food and running restaurants. I can't doubt that for a moment

However, you know fuck all about economics you dozy prick. You want restaurants to be fined for using out of season food. Besides the obvious of how the fuck you’ll enforce this shitty idea (imagine people furtively saying "shhh there is a restaurant that's selling strawberries out of season, don't tell anyone"), what the fuck is it your business? Unless you want protectionism, but you're not the sort of loser twat who would I am sure.

.

What if I fucking want asparagus in December? Do what you like in your restaurants and leave everyone else's alone you cunt! By the way you ignorant fucker, ever looked south of the equator, when it’s winter in Britain it’s fucking summer in South America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, not out of season there, and a lot of people make a living out of selling that produce to people in Britain who want it – and you know what? Most of them don’t get the namby pampy subsidies for losers like ones in Britain do from Brussels – which by the way also subsidies your beloved local farmers exporting elsewhere and fucking up markets around the world. Maybe you should learn a bit more about how mollycoddled farming is in Europe you dickhead, and even how that has fucked up farming elsewhere in the world.

.

So when you say that fruit and vegetables should not be imported into Britain, presumably they can’t be exported too. Not going to get too many fucking bananas then are you? How about the great British grown citrus fruits? Oh maybe you just think that it should only be produce grown in Britain that isn’t imported – classic protectionist, putting the price up of course, like you’d care though. Let the prols pay more for food, the ungrateful peasants. Is that what you think?

You talk as if it is about carbon emissions – what bullshit! Tomatoes grown in Spain and shipped to the UK have a lower carbon footprint that ones grown in heated hothouse farms in Britain. Not so fucking simple now is it brainbox? Ever noted how butter and lamb from New Zealand shipped to the UK has a lower carbon footprint after all that than British produced butter and lamb? You fucking tosser being taken in by this food miles malarky, and I bet you still drive too.

You say “There should be stringent laws, licensing laws, to make sure produce is only used in season and season only," … "If we don't restrict our movements within this industry of seasonal-produce only, then the whole thing will spiral out of control."

Oh you fucking fascist prick. You want a bunch of bureaucrats poking their nose into restaurants checking where the fuck the produce has come from, making sure a strawberry, apple or yam is not in the wrong place. Oh and what is “out of control” mean? You mean people actually just choosing what they want, paying for what they want, and farmers who work fucking hard who don’t happen to be in Europe (because you can’t implement this bullshit against the EU you cock, unless you want to pull out, which is another argument) and don’t suck off of the great tit of Brussels can just fuck off? Well fuck you!

Ok so how about this, let’s restrict all you fucking do to Britain. Ban your TV programmes, books and you even opening up restaurants elsewhere in the world. Who wants some foul mouthed English chef when they can have their own, in fact why trade at all? Don’t get kitchen appliances from Italy, France, USA or Japan, get British ones – get British cars too (good luck), after all if you want to fuck the rest of the trading world with your economic nationalism, then you can’t expect the world to want to buy or sell you anything.

So while you sit playing with yourself thinking how great it would be for a restaurant to be fined for selling an apple pie in June, or tomato sauce from the USA, you could be doing something more useful – run your restaurants and shut the fuck up. You want better quality food, then keep doing what you are doing, but accept that a lot of people in Britain like the bland mass produced crud that is found as ready meals, or is called sandwiches. They do because it is cheap and convenient and they have the taste buds of a goat, but it is THEIR fucking choice.

.

People can choose things you don’t like and you can’t do a fucking thing about it – leave it that way. Plenty of fascists want the world to be their way, you’re not the first. How about remembering you are in charge of your restaurant and your property – you are not in charge of anyone else, that’s why on this proposal there is only one right answer.

Fuck off.

Mike Moore on why many poor countries are poor

Yes, former Labour Prime Minister (well for a few weeks anyway) hasn't got it wrong. Unlike the doomsayers on the left, he paints an optimistic picture about poverty in his Dominion Post column:

"In the past 60 years, more wealth has been created than in all of history. The number of people living on less than a dollar a day has dropped from 40 per cent in 1981 to 18 per cent in 2004. During the same period, the numbers living on less than $2 a day have dropped from 67 per cent to 48 per cent."

That hasn't been because of charity. Moore points out that:

"Private ownership works. Open economies always do better, competition and trade drive up better results and drive out corruption, as well as allocate resources more efficiently. A free market without solid, trusted institutions, property rights, independent courts, a professional public service and democracy is not a free market but a black market."

Yes yes, though we may argue about how much of a public service is needed, he's got it! However it is more than just having corrupt free institutions it is about getting the hell out of the way of doing business:
.
"in Egypt it can take 500 days, 29 visits and 29 agencies, compliance with 315 laws, and costs 27 times the monthly minimum wage to open a bakery."

.
Funny how so many on the left think that somehow the world is impoverishing countries that actually are badly governed and overgoverned in many respects. He concludes that property rights are what is needed, so that the poor can leverage off what they own, have access to courts when their rights are infringed upon and can protect what they produce.
.
"We can establish property rights which will encourage people into the formal economy. It's not that radical, it simply suggests that poor people in poor countries should have the rights that rich countries have. Perhaps that's why they are rich."
.
Now can someone tell the Labour, Green and National Parties?

Nick Smith spits on property rights... again

Although Stuff reports Nick Smith as "Conservation Minister" (wait till after the election guys), Dr Smith wants to confiscate the property rights of Kaiangaroa Timberlands to protect some douglas firs. He wants them protected, which presumably doesn't mean Kaiangaroa Timberlands has any option on not selling them.
.
He wont offer to buy them himself, or set up a charity that seeks to raise funds to buy them.
.
No they should be bought with taxpayers funds because they are "part of New Zealand's heritage". Nice.
.
Now you know how much better National will be than Labour on property rights, as if you had any doubts. Is it any wonder one of my fastest growing tags is "National party disappoints"?

Are your kids on Adultfriendfinder?

Ok Stuff reports that a man is in prison for having sex with three underage girls, 2 were 14, 1 was 12. However check this out:
.
"Davidson initiated contact with the girls through internet websites AdultFriend Finder and Bebo, and by using MSN, email, and text messaging after the initial contact."
.
Now the risks of Bebo as a social networking site for young girls are well known, but Adultfriendfinder? What's that then? Well it is a website for adults that want to meet to have a sexual relationship "The World's Largest Sex & Swinger Personals Community" it claims. It asks that all members declare their birthday as it requires that all of its members be 18 or over. Now Adultfriendfinder is free, but as with many such sites you can't do much without having paid membership. For starters you can't see anyone's photos, and you can only send messages to other members if you are very popular or if a paid member has paid to allow standard members to contact them.
.
Hmmm, so presumably at least one of these girls of 14, pretended to be 18 on her profile and while posting her picture online couldn't view others. What's that about? Not so innocent? Adultfriendfinder is a blocked site listed with several well known parental control software suppliers, presumably the girl's parents didn't care where she went online.
.
Does it justify his foolishness? No, although unless she confessed early on about age, he could well have believed she was 18 as, after all, her profile would have to say that. Adultfriendfinder vets profiles before they are posted too, to avoid the "claim 18 but say I'm younger in the profile" problem, so she must have told him at some point after he started contact.

.
So when a 57 year old man find a girl who says she is 18 on an adult contact site, and she's your daughter 14 - you might ask yourself what you did to prevent her going where she shouldn't go, and don't blame the state.
.
UPDATE: It is notable that the NZ Herald never mentioned Adultfriendfinder, but did mention the girls pretended to be 18 and 16 online. However, it is an offence to sexually groom those underage even if you don't know they are (which he did when he met them), interesting thought crime that one is.

Burma's bullies let their subjects die

How utterly repulsive it is, day after day people are dying in Burma, not for the want of those willing to help, but because the petty little men who run the military dictatorship refuse to let the US in to help, and are maintaning a bureaucratic process for visas that is insane and proving deadly.
.
The BBC reports UN World Food Programme regional director Anthony Banbury saying "We will not just bring our supplies to an airport, dump it and take off".
.
The BBC reporter Paul Danahar notes ...Normally after a natural disaster, he says, roads are choked by the relief effort, but those into the Irrawaddy delta are empty.
.
Charming really. CNN reports China is urging Burma to open up to aid supplies.
.
So what to do? Well it wouldn't be immoral for armed forces from several countries to just enter, provide protection for aid workers, and tell the Burmese authorities that it will use force if necessary if anyone gets in the way of saving lives. The cowardly generals have already been seen on Myanmar state TV in posed shots of them delivering humanitarian assistance. Armed support for aid supplies is possibly the only sensible way forward, and if the regime cries that its sovereignty has been interfered with (and I am sure the so-called peace movement would decry any such action, preferring people to die in peace whilst their government ignores them), then its illegitimacy can be pointed to. The thugs in charge deserve no respect.

The funny old USA - United Sexual Abhorrents

Oh the fuss. Miley Cyrus poses for Vanity Fair magazine in tasteful shots that apparently destroy her image as a good little church going virgin (because of course if you're not you're inferior). That's because, she's 15 and looking sexy. Yes I know I should be shot for that comment too. You see she is Hannah Montana, an incredibly successful child personality.

.

She's apparently not allowed to grow up, not allowed to be proud of how she looks and not allowed to acknowledge that yes, she might even be sexually attractive. She's not pregnant, there is no impression at all that she is sexually promiscuous (or even sexual really), BUT she

.

Look at the comments that some photos of her provoked, accusations that she is a slut or been abused. It appears so many in the USA haven't grown up. For some there you are either an angel or you're a whore... not much different from radical Islam really.

.

Quite simply, it is her body, her choice, if she feels beautiful and happy about who she is and what she does, then good for her. She has harmed nobody, and has spent some years entertaining millions. Begone the repulsive judgmental finger pointers who cast aspersions at someone who is simply becoming an adult - it is you that think the human body is something ugly and vile, and it is you that sees filth in the most natural thing in the world.

NZ taxpayers effectively help pay for Tonga's lavish coronation

It's not new of course. French taxpayers paid for the blood thirsty megalomaniac Bokassa to have a self styled coronation as "Emperor" of the "Central African Empire". This is nowhere near as bad, but you may ask why, according to the Dominion Post, the Tongan government needs NZ$11.5 million a year in taxpayer aid from New Zealand when it can afford to spend NZ$4 million on a coronation of King George Tupou V. Don't forget Tonga is hardly a free country with liberal democracy with an open free media. Although the report says no aid money will be used, this is semantics - because if there was less aid money presumably the coronation would be cut back.

.

Even the BBC has the exclusive broadcasting rights - nice to see my TV license fee being used to pay for what is effectively a dictatorship.

.

International aid should be non-governmental, it should be voluntary. If you want to aid Tonga, then let reputable aid agencies develop projects and help it, and other poorer countries.

Burmese junta letting its people die

Apparently today the Burmese embassy in Bangkok was closed, for a public holiday, whilst many aid workers sought visas to enter and provide help. French Foreign Minister Bernard Koucher has asked that the UN Security Council pass a resolution to allow aid to be flown in by force if necessary.

.

The Australian reports that Burma was warned of the cyclone two days ago but didn't warn its beleagured population. One of the murderous thugs that run the regime has shown how much he is concerned about the locals:

.

Social Welfare Minister Maung Maung Swe said "For expert teams from overseas to come here, they have to negotiate with the Foreign Ministry and our senior authorities"

.

Just another government with blood on its hands, letting its people die for the sake of protecting their precious dictatorship. Charming.

.

China meanwhile is sending US$1 million of aid to the capital and half a million in aid materials. That'll be well spent of course. Wen (Chinese PM) said "I believe that the government and people of Myanmar will soon overcome the difficulties caused by the cyclone and restore normal life and production," in a message to his Myanmar counterpart General Thein Sein. Yes, the government is always most important isn't it?

China's censorship easing off?

The Peoples' Daily is the Chinese government's official paper. Its forum has much anti-CNN anti-Western discussion, but I did manage to post the following:

.

"You may criticise CNN, but is it possible on Chinese media to loudly condemn CCTV? You see unlike people in China, I can watch CNN any time and it will never be censored. I often disagree with it, but I am free to choose. CNN is a private company, it does not represent any government, people in China should remember that and that they cant see it uncensored."

.

It's not much, but perhaps things are changing slowly. It wasn't long ago that such criticism would be censored.

It's his money not yours

This is what Dr Cullen believes when he talks about what he ISN'T going to give back in tax cuts in the NZ Herald. So he wont institute a tax free threshold for income, so that NZ will remain one of the few countries where the government taxes children for having a paper round.

.

This is, fundamentally, the difference between those on the left and libertarians. Dr. Cullen and the Greens (forever talking about "we" and "our" as if the state and individuals are indivisible) believe that taxes are not your money, but their money - their money to be used to pay for setting up a radio station, subsidising a business, buying a train set, paying for welfare - it's all their money. Taxes are moral to the left, they are the way by which the rich (spit) have their wealth (probably not justified) taken to be given to those who deserve it, or for a "higher purpose". The "national interest" being the reason why people are forced to pay for what Dr Cullen wants.

.

Now you wont ever see those on the left talking about force, they prefer to ignore what taxation actually is. It isn't something people give up willingly - no. It is taken under threat of more being taken, and imprisonment. Don't forget, the state only presumes you're guilty of not paying your taxes - if you murder someone, you're innocent till proven guilty.

.

You see the money taken in taxes is yours, you gained it by salary, wage, dividend, interest, sale or gift because someone chose to give it to you for whatever reason. However, most politicians think that it is their money, and moreover that you can choose between those who will take a bit more and those will take a bit less. That's going to be the parameters of the debate at the election. Dr Cullen is going to throw you a little bit back no doubt, and you'll be expected to be very grateful for that. The Greens will oppose it, because they believe the state should do whatever it thinks is right to make people behave correctly. National will offer you a little bit more than Labour, but still believes it isn't your money - it is the government's money.

.

So what i want to ask is this. Whose money do YOU think it is?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy you healthcare. Do you think you're getting a good deal from him? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr. Cullen to buy your kids' education. Do you think you're getting a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key can do a better job?

.

Many of you trust Dr Cullen to use your money to support businesses or other organisations of various kinds, including recording music videos, producing TV programmes. Would you choose for this to happen? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Many of your trust Dr Cullen to buy you a retirement income? Do you trust you'll get a good deal? If not, why do you think John Key would do it better?

.

Got the picture?

.

This is what arguments about tax cuts are about. Are politicians and bureaucrats better placed to spend your money than you are? Would you choose to spend your money on what they want?

.

Ah yes, some of you say. What about schools and hospitals? You're happy to pay taxes for them. Are you? You get good value for money do you? What happens if you don't like the school, you can... no the money stays there. How about the hospital? Oh yes, you can't do anything about that either.

.

How about if you gave Dr Cullen some more, so he could buy your groceries, would be simpler wouldn't it? Ah, you get that, but so many don't get why he shouldn't be trusted to buy your education or health care.

.

You'll also notice that most politicians want you to pay taxes so you can pay for the education, health care and food of OTHER families. Ask them how many people you're expected to pay for - you wont get a straight answer, but the implication is that you're obliged to otherwise there is something wrong with you.

.

You see I think it IS your money. So here's a trick to play this election. Do it at candidate's meetings or whatever way you can find - ask the magic question:

.

Do you think the taxes I have to pay are my money or your money to use?

.

If they say it is their money, congratulate them on their honesty and ask why they think they have to force you to pay for things they want.

.

If they say it is your money, ask you when you can have it back because you think you can buy better healthcare, education and pensions than they can.

.

No doubt you'll get all sorts of weasel words about taxation being the price for civilisation - bullshit. So tax havens are uncivilised are they?

.

You'll hear something like "what about all the people who can't afford it"? In which case, why should you put up with substandard health care and education for the sake of those who'd rather spend their own money on something else? Why deny you choice because of others?

.

You'll hear something like "most people agree with taxes". Say that "most people" once thought homosexuality should be a crime, and that the rights of minorities shouldn't be sacrificed because the majority wants them to be.

.

You see a libertarian doesn't believe taxes are moral. Taxes are theft, legalised of course, but still theft. Those who do not produce taking money from those who do. Those who truly believe in less government will phase out taxes, and reduce them without a second thought. They will proudly hand back your money, but in exchange say it is up to you to buy education, health care, a pension and insure yourself against unemployment and the like.

.

Will National do that?

Disaster aid for dictatorships

The tragedy that has beset Burma has according to the BBC now claimed 22,000 lives with another 41,000 missing. The cyclone has destroyed so many populated areas near the coast that the need for emergency aid and assistance is clear. In many countries it would be a simple matter of the relevant government allowing government and non-government aid agencies in to provide shelter, food, clothing, water and medical assistance to those now on the brink of their lives, but this is Burma.

.

Burma is a military dictatorship, a particularly nasty one, and has been so since 1962. It suppresses dissent with little mercy, and the military exists primarily to keep the government in power. It is notable how absent the military has been during this civil defence emergency, clearly it doesn't exist to help the population.

.

You see there is little point giving aid or money to the Burmese government - for the simple reason it wont do anything with it except to enrich itself. It is corrupt and murderous, and few want this regime to do anything short of collapse. It is telling that the French government has been explicit about this, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner saying that only 200,000 euros is being donated because "we don't really trust the way the Burmese ministry would use the money". Indeed.

.

The USA has promised to come to the assistance of Burma, but only on condition that US disaster assessment teams can enter and be in control of searching for missing people and handing out aid. The Bush Administration too doesn't want the Burmese government restricting or taking any of the aid. No doubt some will accuse it of wanting to spy or not caring about the Burmese people - the same accusers probably also protest Burmese human rights, so are never happy.

.

Of course the World Food Programme of the UN is throwing food aid at the country, who knows how much of that will be quietly taken by the regime to keep the military fed in fear of insurrection. The United Nations, after all, is morally blind to whether a member state is a dictatorship or a free country.

.

So what SHOULD be done? Should Burma be, despite the toll, left to be, on the basis that aid will more often than not be confiscated by the military, and that any aid sustains the regime as much as the public? Is it not possible that the cyclone could weaken the regime enough that it can allow for some civil insurrection to bring it down? After all -the biggest problem Burma has is not the cyclone - the military government has impoverished, killed and imprisoned the population for decades.

.

Or should aid flow, on the basis that most Burmese have neither the means to resist the regime, and are facing certain death without food, shelter and medical help? Is it better for them to see western aid agencies and organisations giving help directly, and it is simply human benevolence to help those who can't help themselves in a time of dire need?

.

I say the latter, but conditionally. It is tragic to simply ignore what has happened, but Burma has to accept aid on the terms of those who offer it. That means if the US is willing to send in teams of experts at rescue and groups to rehabilitate destroyed villages, it does so on its terms. It means bypassing the military and if there is interference, then aid workers should leave. There is ample testimony that North Korea took western aid during the 1990s floods for high level party and military first, with many people receiving next to nothing. This can't happen in Burma. Medicins Sans Frontieres is one private aid agency that withdrew from North Korea out of frustration that it couldn't deliver assistance directly to those in need. If the Burmese authorities wont accept this, then the blood of the Burmese people will be on their hands again. Certainly the few media outlets the Burmese can access (illegally) should broadcast this loud and clear (BBC World Service and Voice of America in Burmese).

.

So if you wish to donate to aid efforts for Burma, be warned. Donate to private charities that are careful to use their own people to assist people directly, not donate to government. That means ignoring UN organisations.

.

I note also that the hosts of the Olympics this year have said nothing in their official organ about helping "Myanmar" but have faithfully reported their fellow dictatorship's news. Yes, the People's Republic of China is such a great world citizen isn't it?

Dr Cullen's logic impeccable

Around 30-40% of you still trust a fair bit of your income with this man. Would you trust him spending your money to buy food, clothes, entertainment? Would you trust him to select a partner for you? So why do you trust him to buy you a pension, insurance against sickness and unemployment, accident insurance, health care and education for your kids?

.

Just take this comment from the NZ Herald on why he justifies taking your money to buy locomotives, wagons and rail ferries "There were many benefits to the Crown being owner including that the taxpayer buyback meant "we won't be seeing profits flowing out of the country"". Why did he bother using the last five words?

.

He also said "a properly integrated rail system could not be run at a profit without some degree of subsidisation by the Government " again why use the last eight words? A profit with a subsidy is not a profit.

.

Oh and by the way, why would you trust Bill English and John Key to spend your money on exactly the same things? Especially since they wont dispose of this new taxpayer liability. Meanwhile ACT is condemning it, condemning National but not saying what it would do. What's that about? What's wrong with the "P" word Rodney?

Tame Iti gets to be a thespian

Yes, I know it's obvious to mention this, but who else could get bail on firearms charges that would allow you to leave the country so you can act in a play in Europe?

.

Tame Iti is a communist, and has a long history of siding with totalitarian thugs and long has wanted separatism for Tuhoe (wish I actually don't mind as long as private property rights are respected and there is no claim on the NZ taxpayer) as seen in this video.

.

However, his politics don't matter as much as how the oppressive occupiers allow him to go on a global trip as a thespian, despite firearms charges (which admittedly may not exist under a libertarian government).

Wellington transport plan reasonable

Well the Greens are unhappy (but building a road and not building a steel church - I mean light railway - means that is guaranteed), but the plan itself as reported in Stuff isn't half bad. A new flyover at the Basin Reserve (long been planned and necessary) will make a big difference as will widening Wellington Rd and Ruahine St. Bus lanes through town and down Cambridge and Kent Terrace could do some good (especially if taxis and trucks are allowed on them too), so all in all a reasonable way to spend some fuel tax.

.

The ridiculous light rail fetish, which few of the enthusiasts accurately cost on a per passenger km basis, should be killed. However, second Terrace Tunnel and Mt Victoria Tunnel would be good - but there is no talk of tolls which could fund them. I'd argue that State Highway 1 could be privatised and that would incentivise construction of a decent bypass as it could have variable tolls by time of day, but there is little appetite for this in Wellington.

.

Oh and while the Wellington Mayor is enthused, note no MPs will get fired up about modest good road projects - they don't see votes in them (unlike Peter Dunne's fetish with Transmission Gully), so they often get neglected. Not even the Transport Minister, Annette King, whose electorate would benefit enormously from improving the roads between the city and the airport, is too interested - but then maybe she's looking at what her job is after the election?

NZ Herald hits rail issue on the head

Today's NZ Herald editorial has made the point that is ignored by the anti rail privatisation church:

.

"If those private owners who put their money into the assets did not maintain their investment, there must have been a reason. They would surely have not let those assets deteriorate if rail was truly competitive with road transport and capable of realising a good profit. Passenger services would not have ended if people had viewed trains as a preferred means of transport. Most recently, Toll had been unable to make the business afford the rent that the Treasury wanted for use of the Crown-owned track network. Clearly, there was a significant distance between the profitability of the rail service and the cost of infrastructure maintenance."

.

Absolutely furthermore "People will also take some convincing that modernisation, in itself, will make rail attractive to customers. Evidence supplied by Wisconsin Central and Toll suggests there is a substantial, perhaps unbridgeable, gap between it and roading in purely economic terms."

.

So you see, it was economically rational to run down the railway system. It simply wasn't worth it. Unless of course you believe the nonsense about the environment, or you want a train set to run.

So what IS happening with fuel tax?

First, the government announces, some time ago, that to fund more inefficient public transport, and roads that are politically driven, it will allow regional councils to levy fuel taxes on petrol AND diesel (diesel typically has no tax usually).
.
Helen Clark says on the 6th that the new regional fuel taxes to subsidise public transport (and fund more roads) wont happen.
.
Dr Cullen then says they will. However the government wont agree to a "full tax" immediately. He says that without a regional fuel tax in Auckland, rail electrification can't proceed. You might ask why those who would benefit from rail electrification - users and operators of the commuter rail service - can't pay for it themselves? You might ask by how much congestion will drop because of electrification? You wont get an answer.
.
Now Helen Clark says it wont include transport in the emissions trading regime until 2011, so that the punitive 8c/l levy would be delayed. Note the word delayed. She also said the government wont approve a regional fuel tax as high as 5c/l, which means you might get one less than that.
.
However, one thing you can be certain of - Labour will increase fuel taxes or levies. You might ask how good the "investments" are that it expects the taxes to be used on.

Reaction to rail nationalisation

Predictably, the soothsayers and faith based activists for rail are bowing their heads in deference to the mountain of taxpayers' money thrown into buying the ferries and railway rolling stock. Don't forget this is $150 of your money taken to be used on this - you might have preferred that be spent on food, health insurance or some books for your kids - no you've been forced to buy a business that will cost you more again, each year, so that a handful of companies can move their freight more cheaply.

.

According to Stuff:

Mainfreight is cheering it on, after all, it will be a key beneficiary of subsidised rail freight.

Jim Anderton and NZ First's Peter Brown, both experts of regulatory economics (ha!), are wetting themselves with excitement. Peter Brown claims it "will result in improved service, innovation" though I wonder what he was drinking when railways were last government owned to think that state ownership means innovation and quality service. It was a national joke. Jim Anderton of course simply worships state ownership - remember that he will be deciding, along with other Ministers what trains you'll be forced to buy for the railways. Yes - the $665 million is only the start. It's worth noting that Air New Zealand, being publicly listed and partially privately owned doesn't have any such political interference (or subsidies) in its investment programme. However, you might wonder whether Peter Brown, whose personal policy fetish is coastal shipping - has realised the government is about to own one of the biggest competitors of the coastal shipping sector!

.

Richard Prebble claims the buyback may cost as much as $3 million a day in subsidies. He may not be far wrong. He also asks if different companies will be allowed to run train services on the tracks (as is the case in much of Europe and Australia) or whether the government will run a monopoly? It's a good point. Why shouldn't someone wishing to buy their own trains run a service on the publicly owned tracks, especially now the government has bought Toll's monopoly access rights?

.

The trucking industry, in the form of Tony Friedlander (ex. Muldoon era Minister of Works) of the Road Transport Forum said it was too early to comment. After all government owned rail is likely to compete with many trucking operations.

.

The Greens are of course thrilled that taxpayers have been forced to buy their idol - the railway rolling stock and locomotives. It would be nice if they actually used it more though. Nevertheless Jeanette Fitzsimons is already calling for you to be forced to pay for the slowest motorised long distance transport in the country - passenger trains! It takes six hours to go by rail from Christchurch to Dunedin (without speed restrictions) four hours to drive, less than an hour to fly. It takes five hours from Wellington to Napier by rail, 3.5 to 4 hours to drive and an hour to fly. Auckland to Wellington by rail can, at best, be done in 10.5 hours, seven hours to drive and one hour to fly. Few things excite the Greens more than rail transport - it truly is a faith based initiative.

.

National of course is opposing it, but wont reverse it. See that's what being in Opposition is all about - oppose a policy at the time, but go along with it when you get elected. It's called Ratchet Socialism - Labour advances socialist policies, and National can't move the ratchet back, (and has policy worthy of rat shit as a result). The claim the Nats make that it wouldn't get a good price for the sale. However, here's an idea. Don't sell it, hand out the shares to the general public. Give everyone a stake in the railways and hand over the shares. Publicly float them, see if the value is retained, and then people can bail out if they like. It wouldn't be "flogging off the assets to foreigners" it would be handing them to New Zealanders - true public ownership, though not one socialists agree with because it doesn't mean Cabinet is in control. However, David Farrar thinks there is a case for the state to own core infrastructure assets - so he wont think the Alliance is mad in seeking renationalisation of Contact Energy, Auckland and Wellington airports. Meanwhile Maurice Williamson has said National is committed to buying electric trains for Auckland. Why, except for votes?

.

I'll expect ACT will advocate privatisation of it again, as it should.

Food prices? Blame government

If ever you wanted to witness the catastrophic effects of government intervention in markets you need only see the international crisis around food prices. The primary reason why food prices have been increasing is demand from middle income consumers in India and China. This increase should easily have been accommodated by a free and open global market for food production. Demand increases, prices rise and this should encourage production in the commodities most sought after. Farmers and wholesalers of such goods would make good profits they can reinvest in growing more, and doing so more efficiently. Consumers benefit as this dynamism and entry into the production market helps keep prices from increasing too rapidly.

.

Well it would work that way, but for the European Union, US federal government, Japanese government and other agricultural protectionists.

.

Many have blamed the new found fetish for biofuels. They are partly right. Now biofuels are meant to be good because their production absorbs the same CO2 produced when they are burnt, and can replace oil. Sadly, whilst biofuels may have a future, governments in many countries have started subsidising them, making it more economic to grow corn and wheat for fuel rather than food. Half of the growth in crop consumption is due to biofuels, and that would not have happened had the US, EU and the like thrown bad money at it. Rather than letting oil companies choose to invest in the best options for more energy, there has been massive diversion to biofuels - the result is higher food prices. If biofuels were not subsidised they would face the same pressure on prices that oil (and food) has, making their economics more questionable and helping ensure that the balance of agricultural production is not leaning towards fuel.

.

The biofuel agenda has been promoted by environmentalists such as the Green Party, keen to mandate compulsory targets for biofuel production. As much as they may wish to plead that it should be "sustainable", the vile meaningless buzzword of the 21st century, the truth is simply this - Government incentives for biofuel production increase the price of food. Environmentalists who want the state to encourage biofuels are doing so at the cost of food - simple as that.

.

However, the new fad for biofuels may, at least, have a future. If left well alone, biofuels may well become important, but will be competing with hydrogen fuel cells, solar energy, wind energy, nuclear and dare I say it, new sources of oil.

.

There are two far bigger concerns around the trade in food that are hindering, enormously, the ability of the food sector to respond to increases in demand.

.

The first can be quickly addressed, these are the failures of the developing countries in the form of price controls, import controls, domestic monopolies and the like which have existed in many of the countries most suffering from the increases in prices. The price controls on food have restricted the economics of food production in those countries, and restrictions on imports have also hindered supply. Deregulating the import, export, production and sale of food should be a priority so that the right signals can be sent to increase production, and for food exporting countries to enjoy the windfall to encourage them to invest in producing more. Sadly the socialism of countries like Venezuela, keeping food prices down, has exacerbated the situation.

.

However, for all of these failiings (and in many countries these barriers are being dismantled out of necessity), nothing beats the abject catastrophe created by the European Union, USA and Japan with agricultural protectionism.

.

Liam Halligan in the Sunday Telegraph attacks, quite rightly, the French Agricultural Minister Michel Barnier who claims, without a hint of irony, that the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a "good model". Model of what?

.

Millions will happily protest against so called US imperialism, and have no doubt about it - US agricultural policy is only slightly better (and the Democratic Party led Congress is now pushing through another Farm Bill to spread pork to the feather bedded US farming lobby), but who protests the multi billion dollar distortions and disasters that result from the EU's CAP.

.

Let's review what the CAP actually does.

.

For starters it inflates the price of food in Europe by imposing tariffs, quotas and bans on food imports from countries outside the EU. It does this to protect inefficient European farmers, and so hurts European households by making them pay more than they need for food. The knock on effect is that efficient food producers outside Europe get poor access to that wealthy market, hindering their production in favour of the small, energy intensive subsidised farms of Europe. So the CAP first favours the less productive against the more productive, and European consumers pay more, whilst disadvantaging others.

.

Secondly, the £33 billion per annum in subsidies - yes £33 billion - is poured into the farms that already have a protected market, so they can produce. Ah, you cry, but if they didn't produce wouldn't the price of food go up? Um hold on, part of these subsidies is to pay farmers NOT to produce, much like in the US. This trick was to eliminate over production, caused by the protectionism and subsidies in the first place. So yes, the EU pays for farm land to be unproductive, as does the US federal government. Be nice to end that straight away so that farm land might be more profitable used AS farm land than as a source for a welfare cheque - but no the French government says "it is a model". However, what is truly destructive about these subsidies is how they decimate food production elsewhere in the world, you see the CAP subsidises exports of inefficiently produced European food to the rest of the world.

.

The result? Agriculture in many developing countries has been stunted by the EU's exports of its highly subsidised produce undercutting efficient production elsewhere, whilst shutting its own doors to imports.

.

As Halligan says "the CAP, along with other Western subsidies, has delayed the cultivation of, and investment in, vast swathes of potentially fertile land across Africa, Asia and Latin America. And it's this land which should now be supporting the large-scale commercial production of the food these regions - not to say global markets - so badly need."

.

So the EU, followed by the USA (and don't doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will keep this going, McCain's opposition to "pork" spending may hold some hope) and Japan (on rice predominantly) have stunted and hindered food production elsewhere by propping up their own inefficient agricultural producers. The insanity of the CAP is such that the more efficient dairy farmers in the UK can't benefit from record dairy prices because of quotas of production within the EU - what rational agricultural policy prevents your farmers from making money from high commodity prices, but ensures your consumers pay more than that for what they buy?

.

The CAP was originally about two things - ensuring European farmers had adequate incomes and food security. The latter is a nonsense, given the UK used to consume virtually all of NZ's food exports until the 1970s, and international trade in food with record prices will help ensure food security. The former is even more of a nonsense. The CAP stops European farmers from realising the benefits of high commodity prices, whilst simultaneously hindering production elsewhere. If there were ever a time to remove agricultural subsidies and trade protectionism for agriculture it is now.

.

The clear message to Brussels, Washington and Tokyo should be plain and clear. It is time to dismantle your pork barrel laden agricultural protectionism. That means abolishing subsidies so that production isn't distorted in favour of inefficiency, and abolishing tariffs, quotas and bans on free trade in agricultural commodities - so that your own consumers aren't paying over the odds.

.

Agricultural subsidies are the invention of socialists and economic nationalists, the truly economic braindead. They are immoral, destructive and a cancer upon the world of food production and trade. Nothing would assist in addressing food shortages more than dismantling these abominations, and meanwhile the enormous money saved might just be a boost to the flagging European, US and Japanese economies. Farmers in these countries need to be told - as prices for dairy, meat, wheat and rice are at record levels - you should stand on your own feet. Meanwhile, it would be nice if the EU's budget was halved and taxpayers got their money back.

.

As is said by the Economist, ever the friend of free trade:

.

"Defenders of the CAP and other rich-country farm policies cannot have it both ways. They cannot demand more money when prices are low, and then ask for extra protection when they rise. High food prices further undermine their already rotten arguments for support, and offer a golden opportunity to dismantle rich-country farm protection"

.

The environmentalist new left movement is propagating a new form of snake oil called "food sovereignty". The UN Rapporteur on the "right to food" Jean Ziegler, a supporter of Cuba's agricultural policies, is a cheerleader for this.

.

It's about time that these economic fraudsters were exposed for what they are. Their philosophy is literally killing people, and it is impoverishing farmers throughout the developing world. The time is now for all those who give a damn about food to call for a complete liberalisation of agricultural trade. Nonsense like so-called fair trade and the like should be ignored for what it is, a distraction.

.

Meanwhile blame the environmentalist movement for biofuels, along with agricultural protectionism (although socialists and economic nationalists are equally to blame here). However there isn't much hope, with Sarkozy's administration talking about "community preference" as a new form of protectionism, and both Clinton and Obama pushing anti-trade agendas. S0 when will those who claim to care about poverty speak up against agricultural corporate welfare?