Random Politics

[adonis]

Climate scientist James Hansen on Close Up

http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/mr-climat...-video-4169480

[doppelgänger of someone]

First Julian Assange, now another high profile person is charged with sex crime: Dominique Strauss-Kahn, chief of IMF.

[chubby]

whoda thunk the IMF was into raping actual individuals as well?

[cyc]

^^^

Presumption of innocence, jackass.

Meanwhile, Labour delivers yet again!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/budget-201...ectid=10726556

case of jumping the Budget gun only to shoot yourself in the foot? David Cunliffe, Labour's finance spokesman, found himself a laughing stock in Parliament yesterday after a poll asking families whether they were better off or worse off as a result of the Budget appeared on his website.

The poll was an embarrassment for Cunliffe for two reasons. First, the Budget has yet to be delivered. Second - and worse from Labour's point of view - nearly 90 per cent of those responding said they were better off.

Those respondents must have known something about the Budget that the rest of us won't until this afternoon.

More likely, National supporters organised enough votes to skew the findings in their party's favour.

Having ensured the poll was taken down from Cunliffe's website, Labour was insisting the survey was one that appeared on the site after last year's Budget. A computer glitch had resulted in the poll reappearing.

Labour was staying mum in the House, however, and was offering no explanation for the gaffe.

Keep digging, boys!

[Ab]

Jesus, someone needs to walk into Labour HQ and say "STEP AWAY FROM THE INTERNET. NOW."

[aR Que]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10726458

New budget details, a few cringe-worthy remarks towards the end by our champ.

[Golden Teapot]

Very balanced and responsible I'd have to say.

The left are making themselves look shallow and very stupid again.

[[LvN]N3misiS]

The government should just abandon the student allowance scheme altogether.

[Golden Teapot]

I'd prefer tertiary-level education to be free so long as:

1. The student is demonstrating that the education is working by getting good grades in a challenging study programme. I do like "Get Cs or Ds and you'll be paying full fees"; and,

2. It's sensible to suppose that society needs people with the given type of education. This would mean quotas on some types of courses e.g. we need a good number of people with philosophy degrees but we don't need countless people like this; and,

3. The majority of students appreciate the moral debt they owe to those who supported their education and then go on to act in a manner that allows following generations to get the same support.

I think that tertiary level students who achieve low quality education outcomes for themselves or society or who don't want to offer to properly help those that follow get an appropriate education shouldn't be given any public money as a gift or under the guise of a loan.

[xor]

Originally Posted by [LvN]N3misiS

The government should just abandon the student allowance scheme altogether.

You trolling brah? If not, I'm curious as to why you think that.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

responsible.

Sums it up nicely. Not happy with all the changes (or lack there-of), but, no one ever will be.

I <3 how goff thinks that changes to this years budget should be able to fix all our economical troubles, so cute.

[fixed_truth]

Haven't seen that much yet though caught Duncan Garners take on the budget this morning. http://www.3news.co.nz/Duncan-Garner...6/Default.aspx

Few things he mentioned I found concerning.

It's based on some pretty big assumption ie, a strong economic recovery (170,000 jobs), high wage growth and nothing bad happening. They're counting on the Treasury not being wrong on its projection of 4% growth (even though they've been wrong the past 4-years).

Also the projected income from selling assets ($5-7billion) is already in the the Govt. account before the which and how is sorted out.

Garner describes National as using middle income families (through WFF & kiwi saver cuts) to pay for the deficit. He goes on to say that this group is also paying for the 20billion of tax cuts that mainly went to high income earners, tax cuts that weren't affordable and haven't stimulated the economy.

Also he points out that National are trading in some political capital and are basically saying if you don't want us to do this then don't vote for us. Hmmm

[[LvN]N3misiS]

Originally Posted by xor

You trolling brah? If not, I'm curious as to why you think that.

Approximately 45% of people who start a course of tertiary study in New Zealand do not complete it. A large portion of these people will be recieving a student allowance for the duration of time they are studying. I believe that at the very least, those who recieve student allowance should pay back said allowance if they do not complete the course which they are enrolled in.

[Lightspeed]

You would find a lot less people undertaking study and it wouldn't be just the 45% who wouldn't complete their course.

Less educated people == bad.

[[LvN]N3misiS]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You would find a lot less people undertaking study and it wouldn't be just the 45% who wouldn't complete their course.

Less educated people == bad.

Wow, what a convincing argument.
The reality is that the private internal rate of return to completion of a post-secondary non-tertiary qualification in New Zealand is higher than the private internal rate of return to tertiary education.

[Lightspeed]

Reality is, it's not going to happen.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by [LvN]N3misiS

Wow, what a convincing argument.

Don't invest keystrokes on that idiot.

If anything here we're getting another example of why it might be a good idea to question whether it's worth putting everyone through secondary school; it's pretty clear in this case that the money spent doing so was entirely wasted.

[pervy]

Originally Posted by [LvN]N3misiS

Approximately 45% of people who start a course of tertiary study in New Zealand do not complete it. A large portion of these people will be recieving a student allowance for the duration of time they are studying.

Sources?

[cyc]

.... I am reminded of how intolerable it would be to have a Labour government supported by ratbags like Helen Kelly.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pike...i-worker-times

Council of Trade unions president Helen Kelly has slammed the government for fostering a culture of deference to employers and highlighted the Pike River mining disaster as one of the worst examples.

Speaking at the opening of the second day of Labour's election year Congress in Wellington, she said that after the mine disaster, which took 29 lives, the company was portrayed as providing a great service to the coast and as the "victim".

"Pike failed in its fundamental duty to provide a safe workplace," she told delegates.

Having made this rather strong accusation without providing a bit of evidence, she goes on to say:

"The real story of Pike River is that a group of shareholders from around the world including some very big multinational companies recognised the huge value of the coal in Pike River and decided to invest in mining. That's fine. Whether they did this on the cheap and spent insufficient money on safety is a question on everyone's lips and a matter for the inquiry," she said.

So which is it, Helen? Do you believe in due process or not? More importantly, can you even think at a level respectable for a 6 year old?

On industrial relations law, she said the CTU had drafted a new approach that would ensure that where a union was dominant in an industry and in bargaining collective agreements they could be extended to other workplaces.

Was this the same fuckwit who in the same speech said the rights of employers and employees have to be equally valued? Hey nevermind that a workplace might not want us (fuck those non-union supporting ratbags and the Kuleks who employ them), WE ARE IN!

VOTE LABOUR!!

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It's based on some pretty big assumption ie, a strong economic recovery (170,000 jobs), high wage growth and nothing bad happening. They're counting on the Treasury not being wrong on its projection of 4% growth (even though they've been wrong the past 4-years).

The government has forecast a return to budget surplus by 2014/15 and the creation of 170,000 jobs. It has forecast economic growth will rise to 4 per cent, helping to control its borrowing. Here's five reasons these forecasts are not believable and why the Government will need to cut spending harder and raise taxes either next year or in 2013 to fix its structural deficit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10727171

[cyc]

That's nice but is Labour going to cut spending?

[fixed_truth]

They released some policy today and are cutting spending on ets subsidies, non crucial infrastructure, missile systems for Navy frigates for a start.

Mr Goff told the delegates Labour wanted to re-strengthen KiwiSaver after the recent cuts in the Budget but he was as yet unable to make any promises because of the state of the government's books.
Mr Goff said in such times, any government had to prepared to take tough decisions required. Labour's proposals were fair, spread the burden more evenly and would better encourage growth in the economy.

More importantly (imo) they're addressing Nationals funneling of funds from middle - low income earners to those at the top.

However he said contrary to National, Labour believed the wealthy should bear more of that load.
Labour would also reverse National's tax cuts for high income earners.

Labour to restore R&D tax breaks, increase minimum wage
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10727326

Labour leader Phil Goff has pledged to restore tax breaks for companies investing in research and development and will pay for its $800 million cost by making farmers pay up under the emissions trading scheme two years earlier.
Mr Goff also pledged to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour in its first year in government.

[cyc]

Increasing the minimum wage dramatically during an economic downturn is just fucking retarded. The first to be laid off will be the young and unskilled.

[Lightspeed]

Maybe I'm too generous, but I'm keeping in mind that they're probably making these pledges under the assumption they're not getting in power.

[madmaxii]

Ahh, but the young think they are bullet proof. Woah, let's vote for Labour and get another 2 bucks an hour! Won't affect our jobs and we'll be richer. Meanwhile, in the real world........................ Mum, Dad, I just got made redundant

[fixed_truth]

Wouldn't the degree of unemployment increase depend on how well other economy stimulation goes?

Because the minimum wage affects all firms, it is easier for the cost increases to be passed onto consumers. e.g. because all cleaning firms have higher wage costs, they can all increase their prices.

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/0...increased.html

So 300,000 people would receive a pay rise and the rest of us pay a little extra. Plus Govt. receives extra income tax, GST and reduced WFF tax credit liability. Also wouldn't most min. wage jobs be inelastic?

[Golden Teapot]

I wonder how many heartland labour voters will be able to afford their mortgage repayments under that plan?

I imagine all that's really happening here is that labour are trying to knock mana out of contention.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by cyc

Increasing the minimum wage dramatically during an economic downturn is just fucking retarded. The first to be laid off will be the young and unskilled.

No, the young will be protected by the existence of youth ra--

Oh.

[fixed_truth]

Next ACT will be asking for a separate lower Maori minimum wage too. It's about protecting vulnerable workers and nothing to do with perpetuating our "competitive" wage rate.

[cyc]

Boring. Try harder, leftie. Again, forget about Act or how you hate John Key -- what good ideas have come out of Labour again? People like you still don't get it: Labour is chasing a government with a massive lead in the polls. Give us some ideas. More importantly, National have shown zero inclination to go with Act's extreme policies.

As for Labour, putting farming back within the ETS is a pretty good idea because (1) it's fair and (2) it does open up a revenue source. However, I can't see how the other ideas will generate any kind of quick returns and/or do so without other serious, detrimental consequences.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by cyc

Increasing the minimum wage dramatically during an economic downturn is just fucking retarded. The first to be laid off will be the young and unskilled.

/agree

You can see in the common place where this occuring from when it was last hiked.

Look at forcourt attendants as an example ... gonzo cept in a few rare places where someone multi-tasks counter and "silly bitch in a prius who doesnt know where the nosel goes"

Originally Posted by cyc

As for Labour, putting farming back within the ETS is a pretty good idea because (1) it's fair and (2) it does open up a revenue source. However, I can't see how the other ideas will generate any kind of quick returns and/or do so without other serious, detrimental consequences.

Revenue resource being the only actual point to the ETS anyway..... imho....

[fixed_truth]

Wtf are you on about cyc? I'm quite aware that National voted against Douglas's youth min wage bill. My comment was a poke at Ab who I'd hate to have another Act hangover in a few years

And in the context of Nationals economic mismanagement I think the first installation of Labours policy is comparatively more innovative than National. What do National have apart from hoping growth will be 4%! and selling off assets?

It'll be nice when "people like you" come up with a reason to vote for National rather than still voting against a 2008 Labour Party.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

It'll be nice when "people like you" come up with a reason to vote for National rather than still voting against a 2008 Labour Party.

For me, it's pretty simple. I care about the rule of law and logical thinking. In that light, people like Helen Kelly and her relationship with Labour are doing a great deal to discourage me from voting for Labour. In addition, you need to get real here: this Labour party retains a significant core of the governments that managed to completely fail to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime boom and you're saying that somehow because National hasn't done very well (and it hasn't) people should just vote Labour because it's thrown out a few policies, most of which are totally stupid?

Have you ever read the standard literature on the relationship between increasing the minimum wage and youth unemployment? You do realise what they say, right?

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

For me, it's pretty simple. I care about the rule of law and logical thinking. In that light, people like Helen Kelly and her relationship with Labour are doing a great deal to discourage me from voting for Labour.

Nobody likes Helen Kelly, but what evidence do you have that her influence on Labour is more than any other Union representative?

Originally Posted by cyc

In addition, you need to get real here: this Labour party retains a significant core of the governments that managed to completely fail to take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime boom

Completely fail is quite the exaggeration. They could of invested more in certain areas but the fact that they used surpluses to pay off so much Govt. debt was a major factor in us not being so financially stuffed now. Even National acknowledge this.

Originally Posted by cyc

and you're saying that somehow because National hasn't done very well (and it hasn't) people should just vote Labour because it's thrown out a few policies, most of which are totally stupid?

Yeah I think Nationals failure and the fact that this time Labour are acknowledging spending restraint as well as starting to come up with ideas is something for swing voters to consider.

Originally Posted by cyc

Have you ever read the standard literature on the relationship between increasing the minimum wage and youth unemployment? You do realise what they say, right?

Have you? There's many variables on how much a MW increase will effect unemployment i.e. economic growth. For example if the funds Labour are freeing up (eg reversing of top tax cuts) actually gets spent this might mitigate the effects.

[aR Que]

Biggest effect min. wage increases have is on workshops, particularly small ones, taking on apprentices.
But hell, we want more people to do art degrees than work metal or fix our industrial machines, because tertiary qualifications are everything and make you a better person, right.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Have you? There's many variables on how much a MW increase will effect unemployment i.e. economic growth. For example if the funds Labour are freeing up (eg reversing of top tax cuts) actually gets spent this might mitigate the effects.

Well I have. "Might". Cool, let's gamble with the lives of the most vulnerable, the group that Labour claims to care so much about! Gosh, isn't it nice to be in your fantasy world? This country is, in particular, running major private deficits. Private individuals and enterprises are borrowing to the hilt and frankly shouldn't/likely soon can't borrow much more. Even if you assume somehow that an over-20% increase in minimum wage in one bold stroke does not affect the number of jobs available (you'd have to be in fantasy land to believe this), much of the money used to pay for this will be coming from foreigners and guess what happens then?

Re: Helen Kelly. It's enough for me that morons like her and the CTU have influence on a political party and that such morons openly identify with the Labour party.

[fixed_truth]

You think your embellishment helps clarify your position?

I used might because we're talking about economic theory which at any given time depends on a number of factors. (Btw evidence actually does support the claim that middle - lower incomes spend discretionary income.) Your argument actually should be that increasing the minimum wage "might" significantly effect unemployment. You're the one in "fantasy land" if you think that there are no other factors to take into account.

And btw it's not a 20% increase but a 15% increase in the minimum wage, and that's not yet adjusted to inflation.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

I used might because we're talking about economic theory which at any given time depends on a number of factors. (Btw evidence actually does support the claim that middle - lower incomes spend discretionary income.) Your argument actually should be that increasing the minimum wage "might" significantly effect unemployment. You're the one in "fantasy land" if you think that there are no other factors to take into account.

And btw it's not a 20% increase but a 15% increase in the minimum wage, and that's not yet adjusted to inflation.

Yes it's 15% -- you're right there.

And the standard literature is quite clear that as a rule increase in minimum wage hit unskilled youths hard. It's not seriously up for dispute. For your fantasy of the minimum wage increase having a positive effect on employment in the PRESENT and LIKELY FUTURE circumstances to obtain, you'll likely need at least the following things to come true:

(1) The foreigners to continue to be happy to keep lending to private enterprises in light of our balance of payment issues and export-deficit;

(2) The foreigners to continue to be happy to keep lending under current interest terms notwithstanding the ever increasing private deficits that we'll have to run and the attendant risks to them; and

(3) That somehow some or perhaps even many of the economy-boosting policies (read: fantasies) proffered by the extreme left will very quickly produce substantial economic gains that are quickly realisable;

And you're forgetting yet another thing about the spending by middle class/lower income people. Yes, they do tend to spend most of their discretionary income but we've had spending-based "growth" before and look at how much good that did us. This is a net-importing country and EVEN for essentials like food we tend to import. Unlike you, I am not a blind squirrel who insists that everything my political "enemies" do must be bad: Labour has a good thing going on making the farmers get on the ETS earlier and using the sums gained on R & D tax breaks. There will likely be gains to be realised from that policy. But with the employment market in the doldrums (you've been reading those articles saying how people are now often abandoning the search for full-time jobs and "settling" for any part-time work available, right?) and the country barely growing, proposing a major hike in the minimum wage is just irresponsible.

Oh and wasn't it you who was pointing to all the commentary about how the budget was based on over-optimistic figures about likely economic growth and tax-take? Given that you seem to think the economy is likely to be WORSE than Bill "Moron" English thinks it will be, where are we going to immediately or quite quickly find the $$ for the private enterprises to pay the (at best) graduated increase to the minimum wage demanded by Labour? Go on, you support it -- the burden of proof is on you.

[^BITES^]

Originally Posted by cyc

you've been reading those articles saying how people are now often abandoning the search for full-time jobs and "settling" for any part-time work available, right?

Uggh so fucking true and fucking horrible. Seen it a number of times with supposed "less skilled" mates ...

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by cyc

And the standard literature is quite clear that as a rule increase in minimum wage hit unskilled youths hard. It's not seriously up for dispute.

Um . . . it seriously is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum...irical_studies

Economists disagree as to the measurable impact of minimum wages in the 'real world'.

Originally Posted by cyc

For your fantasy of the minimum wage increase having a positive effect on employment in the PRESENT and LIKELY FUTURE circumstances to obtain, you'll likely need at least the following things to come true:

Where did I say it would have a positive effect? I'm saying that any effect might be statistically insignificant, as many empirical tests have shown.

Originally Posted by cyc

(1) The foreigners to continue to be happy to keep lending to private enterprises in light of our balance of payment issues and export-deficit;
(2) The foreigners to continue to be happy to keep lending under current interest terms notwithstanding the ever increasing private deficits that we'll have to run and the attendant risks to them; and
(3) That somehow some or perhaps even many of the economy-boosting policies (read: fantasies) proffered by the extreme left will very quickly produce substantial economic gains that are quickly realisable;

No, all that needs to happen is that businesses pass on the extra cost to consumers. As I said, 300,000 people get a better standard of living and the rest of us pay a little extra.
Also calling Labour "extreme left" is another example you using labels to try and bolster your own argument. Save us the dramatics eh?

And you're forgetting yet another thing about the spending by middle class/lower income people. Yes, they do tend to spend most of their discretionary income but we've had spending-based "growth" before and look at how much good that did us.

Um stimulating demand in the economy is what we're trying to do. Giving high income earners more income hasn't stimulated the economy.

Originally Posted by cyc

Given that you seem to think the economy is likely to be WORSE than Bill "Moron" English thinks it will be, where are we going to immediately or quite quickly find the $$ for the private enterprises to pay the (at best) graduated increase to the minimum wage demanded by Labour? Go on, you support it -- the burden of proof is on you.

Again, because most min. wage jobs are inelastic, the cost will be spread amongst all consumers.