Jobs Summit?

I largely loathe meetings, unless it is an occasion to tell people what I think and what to do. If I want to know what others think, I'd rather read or hear about it one on one. The bigger the meeting, the less productive it is, because the intelligent people have their time curtailed by the fools.

Having a talkshop about how to create jobs is like having any sort of meeting.

Meetings are where people talk about doing something, not actually doing it.

Imagine a reproduction summit interested in boosting the number of babies. Think how much more productive people would be simply going out and doing it.

So ask yourself this. Are the people at the Jobs Summit (and those complaining they haven't been invited) people who ever create jobs anyway? Of those handful who do (business), wouldn't they be better off being entrepreneurial, or do they see this as a nice taxpayer subsidised excuse to network with others?

I remember the fourth Labour Government, which had Summit Conferences on the economy, Maori and even railways. None of which did ANY good, except make the unproductive feel warm and fuzzy. You see after all that, David Lange, Roger Douglas and co did what was best for the economy, ignoring most of the views expressed at the Economic Summit Conference.

John Key and Bill English could do worse than just sit down with Roger Douglas and listen. They might learn something.

Dr Cullen and Air NZ

Well it is worthwhile noting both Air NZ's drop in profit and the pending retirement of Dr Cullen. Especially given it is entirely because of Dr. Cullen that you all have a share in Air NZ's future, a piece of history the left conveniently whitewashes over. You see what happened back when Air NZ was in crisis is something that SHOULD have brought Labour down in the 2002 election, but Bill English was too inept, and the mainstream media lacked sufficient journalistic talent and nouse to research it properly. Fortunately, almost all of the relevant papers are now on the Treasury website.

The pro-Labour history around this is simple:
- Air NZ made a bad investment in Ansett Australia;
- Air NZ needed a capital injection to save Ansett and expand its business;
- Two airlines offered this, Singapore Airlines and Qantas;
- As the government was considering both deals, the airline went into crisis;
- This was exacerbated by 9/11 and the global drop in air travel;
- Had Labour let things go, Air NZ would have gone into receivership, damaging tourism and resulting in the end of long haul flights with a NZ brand on them, hurting tourism further. There wouldn't have been flights to many centres in NZ;
- Dr Cullen bravely saved the airline, but required it dump the Australian liability Ansett;
- Then Dr Cullen wisely sought an international partner for the airline in the form of Qantas, because it "makes sense" to have a single South Pacific dominant carrier against the "world".

In other words, the private sector cocked up, and while the government was considering bids for investing in the airline, it was going to fold, and Dr Cullen saved the day. Much of that is nonsense.

That version of history misses out a few facts, facts that demonstrate that the whole situation came about because first the Australian then the New Zealand government stuffed up:

- Air NZ invested in Ansett Australia because the Australian government reneged on a deal for an "open skies agreement" between Australia and NZ. Air NZ originally wanted to set up its own Australian domestic operation in competition with Ansett and the then Australian Airlines. The Australian government reneged on the deal (the famous fax from Laurie Brereton to Maurice Williamson) because it feared it would reduce the price it would get for selling Qantas (which was subsequently to merge with Australian Airlines);

- The Australian government made it clear that it would far prefer Air NZ invest in an established airline - but it was not allowed to invest in Qantas. So Air NZ bought 50% of Ansett in 1996, but was not permitted managerial control at that level of investment and Ansett was required to provide various "social services" (unprofitable routes);

- Increasing frustration with the management of Ansett saw Air NZ finally decide to buy the whole thing out. However it paid too much, it outbid Singapore Airlines as it had aspirations to grow to the size of Qantas. What it found with Ansett was an airline in desperate need of restructuring and new capital;

- Singapore Airlines, which already owned 25% of Air NZ sought to increase its investment to 49% of the airline group, as a capital injection in June 2001. This was unanimously supported by the Air NZ board, but needed support from the Kiwi shareholder - the Crown. Official advice was that issues from such foreign ownership were manageable and that it appeared this was the best option, but the government needed to act promptly.

- Qantas lobbied the New Zealand and Australian governments to oppose Singapore Airlines increasing its investment in Air NZ. Obvious of course that it was seeking to kneecap its biggest competitor. Official advice in June 2001 was against the proposal on competition grounds. The Air NZ board rejected the proposal and Singapore Airlines refused to sell its shareholding, effectively making the proposal academic. Qantas continued to lobby for it;

- In July Cabinet REJECTED the option preferred by Air NZ and officials, preferring either a part state/part Singapore Airlines shareholding or a Qantas takeover;

- Air NZ wrote to Dr Cullen saying that "it would seem that the Government has embarked on a high risk and speculative course that has the danger of putting the Air New Zealand group at risk". The then Acting Chairman warned of the "grave financial risk faced by Air New Zealand Ltd as a result of the current uncertainties;

- Dr Cullen tried to pursue a half and half option allowing some Singapore Airlines investment along with some Crown investment, which was bypassed as the Crown bought out the airline.

Oh and as a side note, the economic geniuses at the Greens believed Air NZ was NOT in a dire financial straight and opposed any new foreign investment, but promoted taxpayer shareholding.

Dr Cullen helped bankrupt Air NZ, because of his peculiar pursuit of the Qantas deal, and the delays in approving the Singapore Airlines investment proposal. You might ask yourself why Dr Cullen didn't like money from Singapore, but liked it from Australia. Not xenophobia surely?

While it is all a bit more complicated than that, the truth is that the slow progress of Dr Cullen and the interference of Qantas has cost the NZ taxpayer dearly, as well as Air NZ. The Greens didn't help either. Air NZ warned that the government's approach created grave risks, and it was right.

So when Dr Cullen steps down, it is worth remembering part of his legacy - the legacy of the lecturer who couldn't make a critical business decision, and surrendered a major strategic opportunity for Air NZ to be a significant airline.

and of course don't forget the Kiwirail deal of the century!

Obama slippery when cliched

So President Obama has done another apparently "inspiring speech". Count the cliches:

- We will rebuild, we will recover;
- What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more;
- Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here;
- Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity;
- But while the cost of action will be great, I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater;
- History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas;
- For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America.;
- For in our hands lies the ability to shape our world for good or for ill;
- Their resolve must be our inspiration. Their concerns must be our cause.

Blah blah. What REALLY is he doing? Propping up state education, subsidising the alternative energy sector and "reforming" health care. THAT's his plan. He shows NO understanding of why the economic crisis has occurred, making it an excuse to pursue his statist plans for energy, education and health.

He talks drivel about how the economic crisis occurred. "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before". So what? That didn't create the recession, the price of oil is right down again.

"The cost of health care eats up more and more of our savings each year, yet we keep delaying reform" It is also some of the best health care in the world, people don't languish on waiting lists and while it needs reform, he remains empty on what that means. It isn't going to be free for free.

"Our children will compete for jobs in a global economy that too many of our schools do not prepare them for" Indeed, but he opposes competition in the education sector.

"we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before" yes and you've cut spending and Federal debt, hang on... oh and yes all individuals are to blame aren't they, justifies anything you do.

"we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election" You mean like when you spend a fortune of future taxpayers' money to bail out businesses and "invest" in subsidies? What's this "we"?

"Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market" such as? Nice leftwing rhetoric and that's it.

"People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway" However you want to bail them all out from their stupidity yet you talk responsibility??

"I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t" However I don't mind it at all, and don't have any other solutions.

"I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships" and will do so more in the future. You're guessing.

"More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit" Generating what economic benefits? Yep you don't know do you?

"I have appointed a proven and aggressive Inspector General to ferret out any and all cases of waste and fraud. And we have created a new website called recovery.gov so that every American can find out how and where their money is being spent." That website is so shallow it isn't funny.

" the budget I submit will invest in the three areas that are absolutely critical to our economic future: energy, health care, and education" Unlike property rights, law and order, roads, services, manufacturing and primary production. Why these three? Nothing.

"Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders" Code for "I'm an economic nationalist who believes in picking winners with subsidies".

" I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America." China's laughing, Al Gore is wetting himself in onanistic frenzy in his mansion.

" I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it. None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy. But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy. We do what is necessary to move this country forward." Easy to spend other people's money to prop up a failed sunset industry AND claim to be an environmentalist doing it.

"an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy" I believe the phrase "his country" would be more accurate if "his" was replaced with "young" and country had only one syllable.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans" Note the term "break". As if they get out paying less than everyone else, when they pay much much more. The use of "children" to tug at heart strings.

He promises to cut spending, yet spends more. He talks of warning of protectionism, but has been caught out promoting it, and as a Senator positively voted for it. He talks about recovery, but is seeking to support the unionised federal education system, and fails to understand that government hinders growth and investment.

It's slippery, devious and it isn't change - it is a born again Carteresque socialism that believes in spending your way out of disaster, and talks about debt, without doing anything about it. He talks about avoiding earmarks, but so much of his recovery package was about propping up many Democrat cause celebres.

Obama can make a speech sound good, can plaster it with cliches that inspire the shallow personality cult followers, but behind it all should scare people. Scare them that the President thinks the crisis is about renewable energy, upgrading government schools and healthcare reform. He's so far off the mark it isn't funny, and his collectivist rhetoric should send chills down the spines of those who DON'T believe they borrowed too much, DON'T want to commit to another year of education and DON'T believe they owe anyone anything because of their existence.

UPDATE: Mark V. rightly points out in the comments that Obama's statement implying the USA invented the automobile is false, as it was invented in Germany and credited to Karl Benz. Will the left damn Obama for being ignorant and non-worldly for this mistake, as they would have thrown at Bush, or will they forgive the messiah, like he was forgiven for referring to 57 states? Of course, it will be forgotten and anyone reminding you of it in around 3.5 year's time will be treated as racist.

The filthy war on drugs

Will de Cleene blogs on the case of a 92 year old woman killed by the Atlanta Police during a botched drugs raid. So what happened?

- An officer got a "no knock" warrant to enter this woman's house, in other words smash in to the house, based on evidence that he falsified, following a fake tipoff;
- The officers smashed their way into the house, the elderly woman shot her own gun off as a warning shot, because she thought she was suffering a home invasion;
- They then sprayed her with bullets, and left her to die;
- Marijuana was then planted in her basement, to cover up what they did.

Another victim of the war on drugs, a victim of the maniacal attempts at performance quotas for Police to catch "criminals".

However, I guess it's ok to most people, as long as she isn't your mother, grandmother, wife, sister or friend.

Hell in Swat - the Taliban's province in Pakistan

I wrote a week ago about the appeasement of the Taliban in Pakistan. Now David Khattakis of the Sunday Times is the first British journalist to enter the Taliban controlled zone, and he calls it a wasteland of blood and fear. Read his article, some of what he describes are:

- one can still see the remnants of the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation’s flagship hotel. The building was blown up by the Taliban because it was being used for “un-Islamic activities”;
- The women’s clothes markets are either closed or show banners proclaiming: “Women are banned from entering this market.”;
- Barbers have pasted hand-written posters to their shop fronts saying: “Shaving a beard is unIslamic. We have stopped shaving beards. Please don’t visit the shop for a shave";
- all girls over the age of eight are banned from lessons and, in a symbol of the Taliban’s hatred of learning, the public library in Mingora has been wrecked;
- Snooker clubs and video game arcades have also been banned.

It banned English films on the privately owned cable TV network, then music channels, then any content with music, then content in local languages before finally shutting it down.

The appeasement of the Taliban in Pakistan is deeply disturbing, for it is unlikely to stop there. The vision of a Taliban ruled Pakistan may sound far fetched to some, but so was an Islamist Iran 40 years ago. I dearly hope the Pakistan government is simply preparing itself for a solid invasion and to recapture this territory - and it would be nice if there was broad Western support for this. The Taliban is a despicably evil organisation with stone age philosophy, it's about time that all friends of a liberal modern civilisation declared unerring support for its destruction.